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 ...
Just win baby!
BUMP
And despite all that it will still be a 5-4 decision.
______________________________________________________________
Going which way?
Obama will imprison most of SCOTUS that won’t be part of his game plan.
Or worse yet eliminate them in “accidents”.
I can see Breyer joining in on this one. 6-3
______________________________________________________________
Help me out here. Even if Breyer joins the Conservatives, I still come up one short.
Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas......who would be #6?
Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas......who would be #6?
Kennedy
So, what’s your bottom line ATX 1985? Will the Supremes rule it UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
WOW! This is a terrific article. There is hope.
Health care will be struck down. Or else.
______________________________________________________________
Or else there will be a freakin’ REVOLUTION in this country.
The entire bill is predicated on the mandate. A struck down mandate is a struck down bill.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Praise God! I pray so.
His 2010 book on Lies the Govt. tells is very very good. But, he misses a point if he thinks SCOTUS will somehow now now make the Commerce Clause mean what it originally means. No modern Court has ever backtracked on Govt. takings and this one will not either. Yes, both the Care Bill and upcoming Cap and Trade bill are un-Const. as we have known it in the past, but not in this age as we will all pitifully feel when these guys get done with us with their legislative victories.
Our entire future will come down to whether Anthony Kennedy had a good BM that AM.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________LOL....That is good.
O.K.; thanks.
That's good to hear. I was only relaying what Judge Napolitano said about how long the case would take to get to the Supreme Court.
Later in the thread several people mentioned that the Supreme Court can "reach down" and take the case at their own discretion. If there were ever a case where they needed to exercise that option, this is it.
I'm awfully late to the thread and rather late with a comment. That said, your post is quite appropriate. The SOTU will get vindication, one way or another, for of what Bowrama did, and in due course, vindicate "we" the people!
We could filibuster a confirmation, coudln’t we?
This is a big f***ing deal!
We should all prepare for a revolution, better to have the tools and not need them than wanting a simple thing as a screwdriver when stranded and your life depends on it.
Our lives are in jeopardy, more so is our futur, our sons and daughters and their futures.
Think not of ourselves of NOW, think about what is THEIR future.
I think we would get Kennedy as well.
.......according to judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano 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 state governments. Nevertheless, 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 ............
============================================
Why the Health-Care Bills Are Unconstitutional
Wall Street Journal | Jan. 2, 2010 | Orin Hatch et al
FR Posted by Military family member
The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
======================================
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/22/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
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.