that voting for Obama care was the secret to winning the 2010 midterms.
Posted on 08/19/2010 5:30:22 PM PDT by smokingfrog
What most Americans do not know about the current legal challenges against ObamaCare: the constitutional resolution depends exclusively on how the case for adjudication is written.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says often that if the case is presented as a judgment about the individual mandate requiring individuals to purchase a certain private sector product or service, “we win.” If, on the other hand, the case is presented as a matter of whether the federal government can control health care, as it does with Medicare, “we lose.”
Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, counsel for Angel Raich in the Supreme Court’s Raich case, coined what he called “the dirty little secret of constitutional law” – whether a petitioner will find relief in federal court “depends on which accurate description a court chooses to accept.” He sums up: A “court may rule however it wishes simply by choosing how to describe the right.”
It is this court’s discretion on how to phrase the constitutional issue that makes U. S. District Judge Henry Hudson’s recent rendering so vital to the case. He refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care law.
Note that he focused on the issue of the individual mandate, not on the matter of whether the federal government can control health care. “While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate – and tax – a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U. S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue.” He who frames the argument wins the case.
Of equal critical important, Judge Hudson also granted the Virginia petition standing.
(Excerpt) Read more at hcnonline.com ...
Since the enumeration provisions are essentially dead, framing the case is now the only way to achieve a result which would be obvious to people who could read the constitution. The Supreme Court is usually just a rubber stamp for big government tyranny.
That isn't a "dirty little secret." That is a blatantly obvious fact of life in the waning days of representative government.
Kinda like the bank making new rules in Monopoly....”pass go and LOSE $200 dollars... Need to get this over..the game can last forever!...
It’s DeathCare and has nothing to do with anyone’s health. It’s a power grab and a genocide of whomever Big Brother decides to let live or die.
Do I understand correctly that ObamaCare failed to include a passage on severability (is that the correct term?), meaning they cannot simply declare one part of the law unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down as unconstitutional??
Sure would be nice!
If so, it’ll go to the Supreme Court. I wonder if Elena Kagan will recuse herself?
Yes, one part goes down, it's all over. There's a reason they omitted the severability clause - it stands on the commerce clause and if that doesn't trick the legal monarchs, then the charade is over.
I presume that's a rhetorical question.
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.