Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sub-Driver

Well that should make for an interesting Supreme Court decision somewhere down the road.


2 posted on 10/21/2009 7:58:11 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

“Well that should make for an interesting Supreme Court decision somewhere down the road.”

Sadly, somewhere down the road the SCOTUS will be packed with libs that believe this cr#p.


5 posted on 10/21/2009 7:59:49 AM PDT by Reddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

I hope we aren’t going to depend on SCOTUS.

I am sure SoSo will fall in line with her masters.


12 posted on 10/21/2009 8:02:18 AM PDT by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

Supreme Court has already ruled that the preamble to the Constitution doesn’t mandate any services.


18 posted on 10/21/2009 8:03:27 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sarah Palin-Jim DeMint 2012 - Liz Cheney for Sec of State - Duncan Hunter SecDef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
-- that should make for an interesting Supreme Court decision somewhere down the road. --

SCOTUS is as much a group of elitist big government hacks as is the Congress and the president. I would not expect relief here, that health care is out of bounds as far as federal legislation goes. We live under all sorts of federal regulation that at least indirectly forces us to buy certain things or services.

Looked at another way, if forcing people to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional, then Romney-care is unconstitutional.

51 posted on 10/21/2009 8:23:19 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

Well that should make for an interesting Supreme Court decision somewhere down the road.

WWWLD?


61 posted on 10/21/2009 8:30:06 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

Is Hoyer already smoking Nancy’s free medical pot?


103 posted on 10/21/2009 9:29:58 AM PDT by Chattering Class of 58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur; Reddy; GeronL; Perdogg; Cboldt; allmendream; LorenC
Two points:

First, the rat Congress will likely invoke Article III Section 2 and remove Scotus from jurisdiction.

Second, if Congress doesn't and Scotus hears the case, it is but a short intellectual, Leftist walk for Scotus to build on Helvering v. Davis - 1937. Social Security was challenged and found Constitutional in large part based on the General Welfare clause, rejecting Madison and adopting Hamilton.

Writing for the 7-2 majority, Justice Cardozo held that Congress was given the power to spend money for the public good under the General Welfare Clause. Hence, the Social Security Act did not violate the 10th Amendment. The Court would defer to Congress in determining what legislative acts served the general welfare. Congress itself would be the monitor of what Congress would do.

I'm reminded of the Framer's warning that our republic would survive as long as we remained a moral people. We long ago lost the moral courage to demand that our representatives and President limit their powers to those enumerated. Toss in a like minded Scotus these past 70 years and the demise of our once shining city on a hill is in view.

152 posted on 10/21/2009 2:54:41 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Truth to the Left is that which advances their goals. Factuality is irrelevant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson