White House Shifts Legal Gears as ObamaCare Heads to Supreme Court

New American ^ | 3/20/12 | Bob Adelmann

[Mikey_1962]

ABC News/Washington Post poll taken in January showed that most of those polled think that ObamaCare, if implemented, will cost jobs, hurt the economy, and cost more than projected.

The people know the truth.

[RC2]

I wonder if the people know the following:

HOME SALES TAX

I thought you might find this interesting, — maybe even SICKENING!

The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, — before it takes effect. But, I am very pleased we aren’t the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners. How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?

Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When did this happen? It’s in the health care bill, — and it goes into effect in 2013. Why 2013? Could it be so that it doesn’t come to light until after the 2012 elections? So, this is ‘change you can believe in’?

Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax.

If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation, — who often downsize their homes. Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important?

Oh, you weren’t aware that this was in the ObamaCare bill? Guess what; you aren’t alone! There are more than a few members of Congress that weren’t aware of it either.

You can check this out for yourself at:

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home

I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book.

VOTERS NEED TO KNOW

[apillar]

It sounds more to me like a sign of desperation if they have decided to completely change their strategy a week before oral arguments...

[Diogenesis]

The undocumented pRes_ _ent will lie, destroy further
the Constitution, and SCOTUS will love him for it.

[manc]

so the people who paid their way,m paid their bills, did what is responsible get shafted again while those living in rentals and have no desire to ever own but stay and play playstation or canvas for the lefts agenda while getting a few bucks reap the rewards.

[An.American.Expatriate]

In a previous case, Gonzales v. Raich, Scalia noted in a separate opinion that the federal government could prevent people from growing their own medical marijuana as a “necessary and proper” way of carrying out the government’s broader power to criminalize drug usage.

I just KNEW that it would come down to that! That Opinion was one of the worst ever handed down.

[Lou L]

If ObamaCare is upheld, the Supremes suffer in the court of public opinion.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be beyond reproach from public opinion, which is why they are appointed for life.

[AtlasStalled]

“If ObamaCare is upheld, the Supremes suffer in the court of public opinion.”

This really will be a test for the Supreme Court. At a time when faith in public institutions is rapidly eroding, a decision to prop up ObamaCare by the Supreme Court pretty much would be a formal announcement that the Constitution which founded the nation is no longer in effect.

[cuban leaf]

—...Scalia noted in a separate opinion that the federal government could prevent people from growing their own medical marijuana as a “necessary and proper” ...—

I almost laughed out loud at that one. Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things. That is the problem with the mandate from the git-go.

I really can’t believe a single judge could side with Obama on this if they have a shred of respect for the spirit of the constitutions of the US.

[An.American.Expatriate]

There are more than a few members of Congress that weren’t aware of it either.

And each and everyone one of them should be tared, feathered and run out of town on a rail for NOT knowing it and voting for it anyway!

[An.American.Expatriate]

It sounds more to me like a sign of desperation if they have decided to completely change their strategy a week before oral arguments...

Sounds to me like they have been saving thier "best" arguments till the end, especially given Scalia's predeliction overreaching the commerce clause ...

[Jacquerie]

There is absolutely nothing from the Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, State ratifying Convention records to support this horrific and purposeful misuse of the necessary and proper clause.

Necessary laws implement enumerated powers. The entirety of Obamacare fails this test.

Proper laws are consistent with a government dedicated to liberty, our unalienable rights as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment. Forcing citizens to enter into private contracts is a direct assault on what little remains of the Ninth.

[Beagle8U]

“In a previous case, Gonzales v. Raich, Scalia noted in a separate opinion that the federal government could prevent people from growing their own medical marijuana as a “necessary and proper” way of carrying out the government’s broader power to criminalize drug usage.”

Which is totally unrelated to this case, and isn't in any way similar.

Pot is illegal under Federal law, even medical pot, unless in DR proscribed FDA approved form. Private health Ins, or the total lack thereof, has never been illegal and isn't now.

[Proud2BeRight]

“Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things.”

Absolutely. When I read it, it looked like an absurd comparison.

[An.American.Expatriate]

At a time when faith in public institutions is rapidly eroding, a decision to prop up ObamaCare by the Supreme Court pretty much would be a formal announcement that the Constitution which founded the nation is no longer in effect.

That happened a very long time ago ...

[USS Alaska]

Such a claim, using Scalia’s own argument, is giving the White House the opening it needs to keep Scalia in line, remain consistent and force him to side with the administration on the matter.

Keep Scalia in line, hahahaha.

Justice Scalia ruled that the gummint could prevent people from growing an ILLEGAL PRODUCT because there was a law already on the books against it.

This in no way "forces Scalia to side with the administration" and if obama's legal team tries to go heavy handed with him, Scalia will show them why our people had such respect for the real Brotherhood.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Necessary laws implement enumerated powers.

Ah, but therein lies the rub! The regulation of interstate commerce is an enumerated power. The court, in Gonzales vs. Raich concluded that a product (in that case medical marijuana) that was privately grown for private consumption was never more than "one step away" from interstate commerce - and therefore the Federal Government could pass laws "necessary and proper" to prohibit sich growth.

Health Care is a "product" and, as such - never more than one step away from interstate commerce ....

Forcing citizens to enter into private contracts is a direct assault on what little remains of the Ninth.

The argument they are using is: "that a person's decision to not buy health insurance affects commerce by materially increasing the costs of others' health insurance."

When Gonzales vs. Raich was handed down, I substituted tomatoes to make a point - it applies here as well (and makes a mockery of this argument as it did the decision then): a person's decision to not buy tomatoes affects commerce by materially increasing the costs of others' tomatoes.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Which is totally unrelated to this case, and isn't in any way similar.

Oh, it is VERY related! The case was NOT argued based on the Illegality of Marijauna, but whether the federal government had the power to regulate it under the commerce clause! This was the case where Scalia established the "one step away from interstate commerce" test.

The argument here is that by NOT engaging in commerce, you are adversely affecting the price others must pay (I know, oxymoron), thus under the powers "necessary and proper" to the commerce clause, the Federal government can oblige you to engage in said commerce.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things.

Really? If you absolutely need tomatoes and the government prevents you from growing them yourself, are you not forced to purchase them? (Assuming of course, you only avail yourself of legal avenues of procurement).

[Beagle8U]

Still very different. There is a very very good chance that medical pot will, and does, end up in interstate commerce. There is no chance that lack of health Ins will.

Something that doesn't exist can't be transported.