Onslow, Daisy & Rose
Posted on 03/28/2010 11:15:53 AM PDT by raptor22
Even if Republicans take over Congress in November, they'll probably lack the numbers required to repeal Obamacare over the veto of its namesake. In the short run, then, the only way to fight this massive expansion of federal government is through the courts.
If the Supreme Court dares to rule the legislation unconstitutional, there will be cries from the liberals of judicial activism and political bias. Nothing, however, would be further from the truth.
It's the members of Congress who, knowing and ignoring the constitutional problems with the health care bill, have put the courts in this unfortunate bind. They played politics and ignored their oaths to the U.S. Constitution.
The most legally problematic provision of the bill is the mandate imposed on individuals to purchase health insurance. The underlying question is whether Congress has the authority under the Constitution to impose these individual mandates. The strongest argument to justify such a mandate would be under the Commerce Clause.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I appreciate this person writing this article but if we win the House - we can DEFUND it on Jan 2011.
I am all for the lawsuits too.
Put our faith in the courts that are run by Lawyers, Democrat Lawyers?
Is that the courts you are talking about? Dream on!
Sorry for bein’ picky, but rather than “defund” they can REFUSE to fund in the 1st place. I would love to see the House not give one damn penny to this monstrosity, provided that the GOP wins in Nov. AND they had the gonads to actually do it...but I’m not gonna hold my breath. I wonder how Obama & the MSM would react if there was no money for its implementation! :-)
We have to flip both houses in 2010, and in 2012 veto proof the Senate!
John Bohener minority House leader promised he would do that. We need to get them to sign a pledge. It has to be not funded or defunded or whatevr you call it.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
De-fund.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
Sue.
The House alone can defund it or refuse to fund it. John Boehner (Ohio) and minority leader in the House said he would do that.
I totally agree. Defund and Sue. Then take it tpo the next level if need be.
It would be just desserts, and the entire nation would know that to be the case.
There would be ABSOLUTLEY NO backlash among those who vote for the GOP in November, so the only risk would be possibly “motivating” the entitlement class (Onslow, Daisy, and Rose) that votes for the democrites.
Onslow, Daisy & Rose
You don’t have to repeal it just defund it!
Response: They could, and should, but it is doubtful that they will.
I would think Obamacare would be declared unconstitutional because of certain states benefiting such as Louisiana and Nebraska, why should certain states be exempt from increase in Medicaid subsidies while the rest of us are not?
I agree. The best chance is to gain control of the House and defund this abortion.
The Supreme Court had to put the brakes on FDR, too. It happens.
Two words: Pelican Brief.
.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, 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............
============================================
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 12/2/09 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
Sadly, Onslow & Co. are very representative of the entitlement class in Britain, and many here as well. But you’re right...would Onslow leave his telly long enough to go vote? Would he even keep the channel on a political show? Would Rose stop chasing the vicar long enough to go vote or understand what Obamacare even is all about?
Nope. If Obama is counting on his base (the shiftless and the gimme crowd) to rally at the polls to save his Obamacare monstrosity in November, he’s wrong. There are more opposed than for it, and the opposed number grows as the bill is being dissected and the facts finally revealed to the populace. The motivation to debunk, defund and destroy Obamacare far outweighs that of those defending it.
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.