ex parte and obey their King and Emperor, and perhaps
all go piss together on the grave of John Jay, like they
did when they last met ex parte with litigant cryptoKenyan Hussein.
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 ...
While I sincerely believe that many of the provisions of “Obamacare” will be found to be Unconstitutional, ultimately,..., there is a high probability that the SCOTUS will reject challenges at this time since, the challenges are for PROSPECTIVE DAMAGES...
The problem is that they will not declare the whole bill to be unconstitutional, just the individual mandate and maybe some of the regulations.
Well, that 5 are who the shampotus dissed in the state of the union.
Scotus needs to fast-track this issue to the exclusion of all others.
Ripeness is not an issue when further development of the facts wouldn’t shed any more light on the case.
I wish he were right, but it ain’t going to happen.
Why Breyer? I was thinking Stevens.
Amen to that one. If Jay Sekulow takes it to the Supremes, he’s got an excellent chance of winning.
who peed in your wheaties?
Jay’s a mite pompous, but he nails argument before the USSC as well as anybody who’s ever done it. The question is, when the USSC as inevitable orders the state cases to be consolidated, will enough states want Jay to speak for them?
Breyer voted with the majority (7-2) to uphold the 14th Amendment in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Stevens and Ginsberg dissented.
Napolitano can argue that this un-Constitutional until he is blue in the face, but I am sure he would say the same thing about a number of other cases that were uncomfortably close in the Supreme Court. Look at Keller vs DC (handgun ban), Ricci vs DeStefano (New Haven firefighters) and Citizens United vs FEC.
Fortunately in those cases Anthony Kennedy was a critical swing vote, but he proved that he is in favor of a loose definition of the Commerce Clause in Gonzales vs Raich (California State’s rights to medical marijuana).
Here is Clarence Thomas’ passionate dissent, with all do respect to Napolitano, he has no reason to say that Kennedy has shifted on this epic stance.
“Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce ... among the several States.”
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.”
“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.”
“If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”
The conservatives on the SCOTUS still want to play by the rules when the Marxists are not. I hope they do, but all that will do is inflame the useful idiots.
“The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,”
Exactly the reason why each state has it’s own Constitution.
Each state is unique in it’s dispensation of resources.
One size of government cannot fit all states equally.
Health care will be struck down. Or else.
Invoking the supreme being to intervene in the foibles of mankind is a fool’s play.
They are counting on it. The thing that will survive is the thing they care about the most - the taxes.
This is a no-brainer. The mandate is unconstitutional, along with many of it’s provisions. Barring private banks from issuing student loans is unconstitutional. Exemptions for certain states and not others is unconstitutional. Exempting certain religious groups from this plan is unconstitutional because it’s clearly discriminatory. The list goes on, add to the list, add-on-ers!
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.
Ping for later
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.