The Health Vote and the Constitution—II

Wall St. Journal ^ | March 19, 2010 | MICHAEL W. MCCONNELL

[Publius6961]

ooops.
Make that (1998) NOT 2009

[bjcintennessee]

Ping

[Publius6961]

What is clear is that the Constitutional subterfuge is being attempted entirely because the House no longer has the votes to pass a properly modified bill.

From 524 U.S. 417 (emphasis mine):

"Third, our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became “Public Law 105–33” after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may “become a law.” Art. I, § 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105–33 would not have been validly enacted. If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law—one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature."

[Danae]

That’s a great article.

[Danae]

You are familiar with the Author? Personally I think that it is a crying shame that this man is not on the Supreme Court. One of the most brilliant minds I have come across in a pretty wide range of reading. His analysis of the law is nothing short of a thing of beautiful. Few can make the law beautiful, and this man is one of those who can.

I would love to know what he thinks the definition of Natural Born Citizen is as the Constitution see’s it...

[Danae]

This was in the comments section.

Can anyone else tell me whats interesting in this comment. Well there are a couple things, but read it for yourself:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* Dave Cavena replied:

Marcia: Here’s SCOTUS on the Constitutionality of Congress managing healthcare:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html

I think it’s a safe bet SCOTUS Justices have read and understand the Constitution, right?

Here’s a part of the decision for you, all quoted from the SCOTUS decision. Pay particular attention to item #2:

1. Any provision of an act of Congress ostensibly enacted under power granted by the Constitution, not naturally and reasonably adapted to the effective exercise of such power but solely to the achievement of something plainly within the power reserved to the states, is invalid and cannot be enforced. P. 268 U. S. 17.

2. Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress. P. 268 U. S. 18.

3. Incidental regulation of such practice by Congress through a taxing act, like the Narcotic Law, cannot extend to matters plainly inappropriate and unnecessary to reasonable enforcement of a revenue measure. P. 268 U. S. 18.