Posted on 03/26/2010 7:46:59 PM PDT by RobinMasters
President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.
"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
It’s time to get the ball rolling then. Either it reaches the SC or we are all behind barbed wire fences when O declares martial law on his opponents.
bump
While logical, that fact has not prevented the SCOTUS from rejecting cases in the past...
We'll all have to wait and see...
I believe an upshot of all this will be more people migrating to state’s that have taken aggressive measures to distance themselves from DC.
41 votes means nothing. We need 51.
You add justices. The number 9 isn't fixed in the Constitution.
First you repeal the filibuster, then...
They will try to stack it anyway...? What’s the diff?
If we lose the elections in 2010 on a "repeal" platform, and then the Court overturns in early 2011, they will justify stacking the Court on the grounds of implementing the people's will.
Obama politicized the Court during the SOTU speech this year. Hard to go back to where we were before.
If we win the elections and a lame-duck Congress passes a bill to increase the number of Justices to 19 to make the Court "more representative", and then confirms a liberal slate, we will have enough momentum to carry us to a resounding victory in 2012.
My thought: even if they don't stack the Court, we should do so if we win big in 2012, and overturn Roe and a bunch of other bad precedents.
I believe it can be “fast tracked” after the first hearing?
The Revolution was, by Garet Garrett
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2185147/posts
They set themselves down in sequence as follows:
The first, naturally, would be to capture the seat of government.
The second would be to seize economic power.
The third would be to mobilize by propaganda the forces of hatred.
The fourth would he to reconcile and then attach to the revolution the two great classes whose adherence is indispensable but whose interests are economically antagonistic, namely, the industrial wage earners and the farmers, called in Europe workers and peasants.
The fifth would be what to do with business — whether to liquidate or shackle it.
These five would have a certain imperative order in time and require immediate decisions because they belong to the program of conquest. That would not be the end. What would then ensue? A program of consolidation. Under that head the problems continue.)
The sixth, in Burckhardt’s devastating phrase, would be “the domestication of individuality” — by any means that would make the individual more dependent upon government.
The seventh would be the systematic reduction of all forms of rival authority.
The eighth would be to sustain popular faith in an unlimited public debt, for if that faith should break the government would be unable to borrow, if it could not borrow it could not spend, and the revolution must be able to borrow and spend the wealth of the rich or else it will be bankrupt.
The ninth would be to make the government itself the great capitalist and enterpriser, so that the ultimate power in initiative would pass from the hands of private enterprise to the all-powerful state.
IMO you dont need to prove “damages” to prove a statute is unconstitutional. On the other hand, “irreparable harm” must be demonstrated to obtain an injunction.
This case could be heard as early as the next fall term or the spring, 2011 SCOTUS term.
This is just a dumb question, but I am going to ask it anyway...
When I learned about the environmental laws one thing I recall standing out like a sore thumb was that the states had to adopt “at least” the federal level of regulation. They could not have laws less stringent than the fed, but they could have laws more stringent.
So why is 0bamacare any different? Is it because the environmental laws supposedly deal with shared resources? Which health care really isn’t a shared resource?
Thank you for the link.
That is a very good question.
The birth cert. nitwits.
It was probably a bribe. I mean the Feds offered so much in environmental cleanup funds that the states could hardly refuse.
But I would have to see the actual laws.
Actually I just went back and looked it up.
It falls under of all things Wickard vs. Filburn and the Commerce Clause.
“contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial...his contribution taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.”
Environmental Law for Non-Lawyers, 1993 Ed. pg. 18
I think we want the Supreme court to wait until After October strike it down.
We don’t want this current congress to rewrite the bill and do it all with Federal dollars or a level of matching dollars that is too high to refuse.
If SCOTUS fast tracks it, the current congress will just rewrite it and do it either all with Federal dollars or more likely, optional state participation but with matching funds that are too high for states to refuse.
We need to drag this out until October, so the new congress can block any rewrite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.