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

To: newfreep

If they (mis)use Slaughter, then couldn’t a case be made that the entire bill is unconstitutional? Whereas if this highly unpopular bill narrowly passes by a (more or less) normal voting, then a case can be brought against specific measures (the individual mandate, for eg) but not necessarily against the bill in its entirety? (The case that Congress is prohibited from passing laws on healthcare is popular on FR, but everywhere else it is taken for granted that the ICC can be stretched (to the breaking point) to accommodate it. As for the belief that the USSC would refuse to interfere with the use of the Slaughter Rule in a manner far more sweeping than any previous use : The state AG’s are lining up , so they seem to think something could be done after the fact. If-*IF*-I am right, then passage via slaughter *might* be the best way to not only kill the bill, but seriously piss off all republicans, most independents, and quite a few Democrats, just in time for the November elections.(No, I don’t think this will be forgotten by then : Especially when more people learn that no, they WON’T get free “health care”, but will be forced to buy (very expensive ) health insurance at gunpoint.)


41 posted on 03/20/2010 8:26:04 AM PDT by kaylar (It's MARTIAL law. Not marshal(l) or marital-MARTIAL! This has been a spelling PSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: kaylar

The bill is blatantly unconstitutional even without slaughter. Several AGs are already preparing lawsuits.


51 posted on 03/20/2010 8:29:38 AM PDT by HerrBlucher ("When the national government and Congress start going wild, it's up the states to rein them in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: kaylar
Agree with you on all points.

I hope this can be defeated in Congress and not reply on SCOTUS to overrule. Considering they upheld mccain-feingold (initially) and Kelo (sp?), SCOTUS rulings are not always constituional.

56 posted on 03/20/2010 8:30:19 AM PDT by newfreep (Palin/DeMint 2012 - Bolton: Secy of State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: kaylar

I don’t know law either. But it seems as if there should be something that addresses misrepresentation of what one is voting for. When the House voted on the bill and sent it to the Senate, it was under the assumption or belief that the bill would come back to them. Surely they voted with this in mind. This means their decisions were made under false premises. This would be like playing a game involving strategy and having the rules change along the way. In any case, Stupak and the like should not have voted for the bill in the first place and we would have been spared all of this mess.


89 posted on 03/20/2010 9:25:20 AM PDT by Anima Mundi (You can take a donkey travellin', but it won't come back a horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | 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