Posted on 08/22/2011 2:42:40 AM PDT by markomalley
Wickard was disgusting, but the first nail in the coffin was actually National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate labor relations. This is the case that gave Congress basically unlimited power to regulate both economic AND non-economic activity under the Commerce Clause.
Let's call up Sarah and Michele and Gov. Rick, and we'll convene an "End-of-Life Counseling" of our own for Obozocare!
And bill Obozo, of course.
What did she do, wink at a man?
But, whether or not any justice will ever admit it, some on the court may be hesitant to invalidate the new law because of the significant strain it would place on an already divided Congress.
The only thing the Justices have authority to consider in their rulings is the US Constitution.
There should be a lot more impeachments. The standard for relieving judges of duty is much lower than the elected president. This was intentionally done because they were not elected and served for life. As the Constitution states
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour
Making blatantly unconstitutional decisions is outside the boundaries of "good Behaviour."
There’s clearly a distinct line between regulating an activity and forcing someone to participate in it. Congress screwed up. They could have increased the Medicare payroll tax or made an entirely new health care tax. That would have been constitutional, because no reasonable person can deny Congress’s right to tax income.
How the money is spent is a different matter. We probably agree that wealth redistribution is unconstitutional, but programs like Medicare and Medicaid already exist. What could we have done if Congress simply expanded Medicaid to offer free health care for anyone making under a certain amount? Other than repealing it, not much.
And what would the taxes have gone toward? I don't see how increasing the Medicare payroll tax is constitutional when Medicare itself is unconstitutional. Congress has the power to levy income taxes under the 16th amendment, but that power does not mean that Medicare payroll taxes are constitutional. Taxes used to fund unconstitutional programs should be held to be unconstitutional as well, otherwise we might as well not even have a constitution.
ALPAPilot: “Making blatantly unconstitutional decisions is outside the boundaries of “good Behaviour.””
I agree. Republicans are pretty much powerless to impeach anyone right now. That’s why President Obama and his administration do pretty much whatever they please. Who will enforce the laws when the chief enforcer breaks them? That’s the problem.
Even if Republicans get the majority, I don’t expect them to vote to impeach even the worst judges. The Democrats would frame it as impeachment for political, not legal, constitutional differences, i.e. bad behavior. They would try to impeach “our” justices in revenge. Of course, “our” justices aren’t really ours. They simply follow the constitution as written and would rule against us in an instant if the constitution was properly amended. Democrats, of course, see the situation differently. No doubt. It would be full on political war if Republicans impeach a leftist judge, aka tyrant.
Here we get to the real crux of the matter. Sorry, I didn't see the second paragraph of your post when I was responding. Yes, programs like Medicare and Medicaid already exist. You're right that with the current line-up on our Supreme Court, Congress could feel free to expand Medicaid or Medicare to everyone, EVEN. That's more a sad statement about how far we've strayed from constitutional principles than it is a statement about anything else, however. The Supreme Court should have struck these programs down when they were first created, and forced Congress to pass constitutional amendments to institute them (which never would have happened). Now these programs are entitlements (just like Social Security) and in the case of Medicare, people think that they have a God-given right to collect 5x as much in benefits as they paid in. In the case of Medicaid, beneficiaries (many of whom have never paid anything into the system) see the system as fulfilling their God-given right to "free" health care.
I seem to recall the administration was defending the individual mandate as a tax not as commerce. May have been early on and they gave up on that.
That means its down to Kennedy. Again.
That is one slender reed we’re depending upon.
I believe that every federal judge that has examined that argument has categorically rejected it, even the judges that upheld the individual mandate. I don't see how the Supremes could look at it as anything other than a Commerce Clause piece of legislation, because the intent was to restructure the very nature of the private health insurance industry.
So noted, but at least the Second Amendment appears in the Constitution, you know, that pesky charter of negative liberties? The right to bear arms is clear, but there is no right, and it is not possible to guarantee disease-free life. Obama wants to warranty healthcare just like his car companies - remember how he said that if a doctor "fails", and you have to go back to the hospital, it is free, like a new-car warranty? The logic is hosed.
“if you think it’s ethical and legal to make a guy buy health insurance, then the same legislative process could require every American citizen to own and carry a weapon.”
From an economic point of view, there’s as much logic in forcing people to jog as there is in forcing them to buy health insurance coverage. Likewise, if free riding is the concern, those with employer-based coverage are bigger free riders than those without coverage.
http://www.healthreformreport.com/2011/06/the-individual-mandate-isnt-about-saving-money.php
Can a Supreme Court justice rule on a case from prison?
Is there still a remaining vote left before we can know for sure whats going to be in it?
She also defrauded the Supreme Court while working for the Clinton administration by altering sworn written testimony from the AMA regarding the partial birth abortion ban.
Not only should she NEVER have been confirmed as a justice - she should have been disbarred and arrested as well.
Republicans are such spineless wussies.
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.