Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare

Newsmax ^ | MARCH 25, 2010 | David A. Patten

[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.

[rxsid]

Question: How can a USURPER sign ANYTHING into law, let alone (so called) "health care" legislation?

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born). Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative.

[Cheryllynn]

“This is a big f***ing deal”

Revenge is a big f***ing deal and best served cold.

[Eye of Unk]

In the near future its evidence like this that can be used in a court of law when the people chose NOT to pay for Obamacare or other mandates Obama pens into law.

His signature has no binding effect, no legal status, its as if you asked an illegal immigrant to write their name certifying that they have all the powers to proclaim citizens to obey and agencies to enforce.

All the right reasons for Americans to RESIST.To DENY, and to FIGHT BACK.

[radioone]

I’m thinking of a movie...movie....movie....oh, yeah, “The Pelican Brief”.......Never put anything past these “Chicago Thugs”.....

[Grampa Dave]

Now, we know why 0b0z0 and his facist thugs trashed the Supreme Court members at the State of the Union spew and several times since then.

[Canedawg]

I happened to hear Judge Nap a little while ago while driving home and I was listening to the Monica Crowley show. he mentioned that he thought the lower federal courts would be throwing out large chunks of this bill as soon as they reviewed it.

It wont take too long for the cases to reach the lower courts, and then more time to work their way up through the appellate process.

It is possible that the SCOTUS will step in if multiple lower courts start rendering inconsistent rulings on various parts of the law.

[justiceseeker93]

Good to see the Constitution and constitutional debates being in vogue again with so many Americans. Unfortunately, it's taking such egregious abuses of it on the part of the current administration and current Congress to trigger these constitutional discussions.

BTW, I've had my pocket sized Constitution, courtesy of the Cato Institute, in front of me here at my computer for years.

[Clintonfatigued]

The title should have said it was Andrew Napolitano. I thought it may have been Butch Napolitano, who’s the Homeland Security Director.

[Liz]

Now, we know why 0b0z0 and his facist thugs trashed the Supreme Court members at the State of the Union spew .........and several times since then.

n-i-c-e take ................the Supreme Court should respond in kind.

[Congressman Billybob]

I have gotten cases from trial court decision, through the Court of Appeals and into the Supreme Court in two months. (See McCarthy v. Briscoe, Sept. 1976.) Delay in adjudication will NOT be a problem. Plus, trial or appeals courts can issue an injunction pending final decision, if they so choose. (The AG's handling the case will ask for injunctions pending appeal.)

Congressman Billybob

Don't Tread On Me (9/12 photo and poster"

""feeding Starving People;/a>

[justiceseeker93]

Yes, at first glance I was as taken aback as you.

[Congressman Billybob]

Slight correction. If injunctive relief is denied by the trail court, the denial itself can be taken to the Court of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals denies the injunction, then the Supreme Court can be asked to grant the injuction under its Rules for Emergency Relief.

Trust me. My first win in the Supreme Court came in exactly that fashion.

John / Billybob

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

Please let this be true! You know how the kids say “Suh-weet”!? I would have to say double Suh-weet!”!

[Liz]

Good to see constitutional debates being in vogue again with so many Americans. Unfortunately, it's taking such egregious abuses of it on the part of the current administration and current Congress to trigger these constitutional discussions.

as Grampa Dave posted.......0b0z0 and his facist thugs trashed the Supreme Court members at the State of the Union spew........... and several times since then.

[ATX 1985]

So, what’s your bottom line ATX 1985? Will the Supremes rule it UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Well, I think the Wild Card will be Anthony Kennedy. We can count on Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia and we should expect that Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer and Sotomayor take the side of a strong Federal Government and the Commerce Clause. There argument could be that uninsured people crossing State lines and ending up in Emergency rooms effects inter-state Commerce.

The wild card is Kennedy, he has been a critical swing vote in a number of very important cases. But, I think he will side on the side of a loose definition of the commerce clause judging from his vote in Gonzales vs Raich (California State's right to medical marijuana). Judging from Clarence Thomas' passionate dissent, I think that this was an important precedent setting ruling.

"If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

With that said, HiTech RedNeck had a post that explains people being forced to buy something is a different precedent. We can only hope that Kennedy buys this argument:

Post 38: Economic-based regulation of the private production and use of a fungible product (same thing that happened in Wickard) is not quite the same as regulation of the simple existence of people, unless people are also considered fungible. On a similar rationale, the USSC rejected the idea that Uncle Sam can ban guns in school zones.

[LucyT]

"The problem with the Constitution is not any structural problem," Napolitano says.

"The problem with the Constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don't take their oath seriously."

Surprisingly, no mention of the constitutional issue of 0bama's qualifications for the Presidency (speaking of not taking the oath to uphold the Constitution seriously!).

. . . . # 153 and # 180.

[Thank you justiceseeker93 and Liz.]

[DannyTN]

"They’ve already floated the idea of increasing the Supreme Court to 12 members, but so far it hasn’t gained any traction outside of the far left and I’m not sure they could get away with it."

No but if the court overturns their precious health care bill, you can bet that they would try it. How hard they'd have to twist arms to get it done remains to be seen, but I don't want to bet against them.

I'd rather time the court decision so they don't have a chance to respond and vote them out of office. That way it's done.

[thecodont]

Trust me. My first win in the Supreme Court came in exactly that fashion.

So glad you're here! I welcome your insights.

[cmj328]

Nuclear option.

[cmj328]

He has a window of time between November and January, and his people might win in November, in which case he has two years to win back popularity.