It seems none of these legal geniuses recognize wealth redistribution when it stares them in the face.
Kon-sty-two-shin?
No, we don’t do Kon-sty-two -shin here.
It’s clearly racist.
IOW, the Supreme Court neitehr understands nor cares about the Constitution.
Constitution? What Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution. We have a Supreme Court!
It used to be that United States Senators were elected by the state legislatures, but the 17th Amendment changed that and established the popular election of Senators by the people of the states, so that kind of made the origination clause moot.
And yet the basis on which they upheld the individual mandate was that the bill was a tax and permitted under the taxing power.
So which is it? Is it a revenue bill or something else?
Although I have disagreed with the SCOTUS’s two main rulings on Obamacare, I don’t think we can ever count on the SCOTUS to overturn bad legislation.
The Democrats have been promising national health care since the days of Harry Truman.
If you don’t like this type of legislation, then don’t vote for Democrats for anything for any reason. The people of this country are responsible for BHO getting elected and for giving him overwhelming majorities in Congress in 2008.
Democracy sucks. I know. If it were up to me, we could go back to the limited government constitutional republic established by our Founding Fathers.
Well, they’re 0 for 2, so maybe they don’t want to actually strike out.
SCOTUS is so bad. Not only are their decisions generally unconstitutional, but the assumed scope of the effect of their decisions are also unconstitutional. The Constitution NEVER granted SCOTUS power to make national law. The authority of their decisions are limited to individual cases and controversies and as precedent for other cases and controversies that have the same facts and questions of law IF the original decision was constitutionally based.
This whole legal challenge was silly because the ObamaCare bill originated in the House anyway.
Yes but our hero Paul Ryan is on the case.
Ryan’s Tryin.
That’s what counts.
*spit*
They know there are only so many phony decisions they can shove down the citizens’ throats.
I remember at the time thinking that it violated the origination clause.
But they insisted that it was not a tax. But then the Supreme Court decided that it WAS a tax (for constitutionality purposes.)
In short, our constitution means nothing except what our elites say it does.
Another Constitutional check nullified.
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” ~ Lysander Spooner
“The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, ‘Limit yourself’; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.” ~ Rothbard
“Constitutions and supreme courts are state constitutions and agencies, and whatever limitations to state action they might contain or find is invariably decided by agents of the very institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will continually be altered and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government’s advantage until, ultimately, the notion of universal and immutable human rights—and in particular property rights—will disappear and be replaced by that of law as government-made legislation and rights as government-given grants.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
“If an agency is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, then it is also judge in all conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision making will also cause and provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to the state for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of the state, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” ~ Montesquieu
“Men are excessively ruthless and cruel not as a rule out of malice but from outraged righteousness. How much more is this true of legally constituted states, invested with all this seeming moral authority of parliaments and congresses and courts of justice! The destructive capacity of an individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and the destructive capacity necessarily expands too.” ~ historian Paul Johnson.
When patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will fire these state sovereignty-ignoring justices.
Regarding the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
” 4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
”Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” - Linder v. United States, 1925.
no, they saw it, they are just liars.