Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Texas Eagle
I think a 2/3 majority of The House can negate an S.C. decision.

This is not correct. There is no appeal and no override of a supreme court decision, except possibly via a reversal by a subsequent supreme court.

Once the supreme court declares a law unconstitutional, the only thing congress can do to achieve the goals of that law is to pass a similar law which is different enough so that it is not unconstitutional.

If the supreme court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional, I think coming up with a new 'constitutional' version of the law will be very difficult for congress to achieve; at least without adopting a government controlled health care system set up similarly to 'social security;' (Obama's beloved 'single payer system'). Of course, it's entirely possible that this has been the goal all along.

44 posted on 04/04/2012 6:55:15 AM PDT by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: WayneS
This is not correct. There is no appeal and no override of a supreme court decision, except possibly via a reversal by a subsequent supreme court.

Aha! So I AM a Constitutional scholar on par with Modo and The Great And Wonderful Ob.

49 posted on 04/04/2012 6:59:12 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: WayneS
Is it too late to invoke the Equal Protection Clause?

After all, President Clouseau has granted thousands of waivers from this law. Not to mention that government employees and Congressholes are exempt.

Of course, they're also exempt from participating in Socialist Security so I guess there's the out right there.

54 posted on 04/04/2012 7:02:16 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: WayneS
This is not correct. There is no appeal and no override of a supreme court decision, except possibly via a reversal by a subsequent supreme court.

The Congress has the option of removing federal judges. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior. If a federal judge refuses to rule in accord with the Constitution the Congress may remove him, and he can be replaced with one that will.

68 posted on 04/04/2012 7:40:16 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: WayneS; Texas Eagle

Wayn is correct. However, with almost every decision declaring a law unconstitutional either in the decision itself or in a dissenting opinion, “hints” are made as to how the same result can be accomplished with just a little twist in approach.

It will be interesting to read the opinion in June. Right now, I agree with a number of people that believe the vote is in to at least invalidate the individual mandate but since the law lacks (purposely) a severability clause I think the initial vote is to declare the entire law invalid.

This I think explains our Pres_ent’s ill-considered, inflammatory remarks regarding the case. Whether a clerk or a sitting justice gave the White Hut a heads up would be a great find! ;-)


84 posted on 04/04/2012 9:10:01 AM PDT by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: WayneS

I could certainly be wrong on this (and I probably am), but I have been given to understand that while Congress can’t overrule the S.C. once it renders a decision it can determine what the court is allowed to rule on beforehand.


90 posted on 04/04/2012 9:26:31 AM PDT by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson