Explore Group
- Topics
- Members
-
-
-
Twitter
-
Digg
-
Obamacare constitutional?
Too many points for a header, so I will try to first post and go from there.
- Created by David Bryan
- Go to Most Recent
Recommend a comment by clicking 
-
Well, by definition and as of a bit after 10 AM on June 28, 2012, it is.
Recommend
That said, it's a terrible day for the American experiment, though (I believe) not an extinction-level event. They did not expand the Commerce Clause, as the Left wished. In fact, Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine thinks they actually restricted its interpretation, and also thinks that Roberts is waging a long campaign to rein in the Commerce Clause.
If only it were true.
-
We have just entered la-la land folks. Depending on the time of day, supporters of Obamacare argue that the mandate is a tax, or not, depending on which is more advantageous at the time. Mostly, it's about wanting to have your cake and eat it too, legally.
2 Recommendations
The distinction is important (or was) because it was thought that a tax could not be declared unconstitutional as the mandate should be, nor can private citizens bring suit against it due to the "anti-injunction act". So why not just call it a tax? ... because Obama promised not to raise your taxes "one dime".
For these reasons and others, it was not called a tax and the bill was not written as if it were a tax. However, the SCOTUS just decided to retroactively declare that it is a tax.
Question: When you have a Senate that won't pass a budget as required by law, an executive branch issuing executive orders as if they were law, and a SCOTUS rewriting law as if it were congress, what's the point of congress?
If we are no longer a nation of laws, is this the beginning of the end?
-
We've been on the road to the end for a very long time. Whether one wants to judge the beginning as the actual beginning, on the premise that
1 Recommendation
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. "
or judge the beginning as the start of the expansion of the federal government under Wilson, I'd argue that we've been on a path away from the premises of laws not men and limited government for a long time.
I *can* imagine a reversal, though, and it may very well be that this ruling energizes the small government crowd enough to throw the bums out. A tall order, that...
-
I have always hoped that the fact that we are suppose to be a Republic and not a Democracy would sheild us from this fate.
3 Recommendations
Losing hope
-
-
-
Suppose the health care law is constitutional. So a big, intrusive federal government is constitutional--the Constitution is broken.
1 Recommendation
In 1789, Congress got its unlimited power to tax in order to meet unforeseeable national emergencies. We've constantly had "emergencies" since and taxes kept going up.
Congress has become an evil empire; it has unlimited power to tax. A Constitution amendment to restrict that power is needed.
-
I am no fan of socialized medicine. All you have to do is take a look at England to see where that road leads, but strictly speaking, I don't think the government providing healthcare is what is unconstitutional. It is the requirement that you must purchase it - particularly if it is from a private entity and/or it is not called a tax.
Recommend
BTW, none of this applies, for example, to auto insurance because A) a state can mandate that sort of thing, and B) you are only required to insure as a condition of driving on a public road
-
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I never let that stop me from voicing my opinion before, so I see no reason to start now.
1 Recommendation
In order for a law to be Constitutional, there has to be a way to find it in the Enumerated Powers. Squeezing healthcare into one of those would be like squeezing Shaquille O'Neal into a size 38 Regular. I don't think you can do it.
-
-
Why do you suppose that if we were to get a Constitutional Amendment that Congress would suddenly start following the Constitution?
1 Recommendation
We've had extra-Constitutional actions for some time now.
-
"In order for a law to be Constitutional, there has to be a way to find it in the Enumerated Powers."
Recommend
No problem. All you have to do is look in the giant area between "for the common good" and "necessary and proper". A little clause massage, and you can do whatever you want.
Which turns out to have been (in retrospect) an excellent argument against the bill of rights. Once they were listed plainly, instead of the constitution being a blanket of universal protection, it has devolved down to only what is in the Bill of Rights, and all else is held hostage to the supposedly minor words "good" and "necessary".
-
-
If there were enough intelligent voters to get a Constitutioanl amendment passed to do that, we wouldn't need one.
2 Recommendations
-
Hi Eric, I think this quote is very appropriate for the times.
Recommend
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. This is so because those who gain positions of power tend always to extend the bounds of it. Power must always be constrained or limited else it will increase to the level that it will be despotic." - Thomas Jefferson 1819
-
-
-
-
The issue CJ Roberts was addressing when analyzing whether Obamacare could be up held was not an issue of legislative construction, but one of constitutional authority. Congress could invoke an enumerated power and preceed to enact legislation having nothing to do with that power.
Recommend
The most telling thing about the decision is it did not command a unanimous court. Liberals achieved the political outcome they wanted, while conservatives avoided the massive expansion of governmental regulatory power. That the liberal wings of the court could not unite on the decision demonstrate that they are politically motivated and not deciding cases on the law.
-
-
The job of the Supreme Court is to determine constitutionality of legislation not to rewrite it. If we take Roberts direction and find that indeed the mandate is not a mandate then it should be sent back to Congress for it to be rewritten. Congress could then vote on Obamacare as a tax if that was what they wanted and the Supreme Court could review the legislation if necessary, but we already know that Congress would not pass the bill as a tax.
Recommend
Thus Roberts did not act as a SC Justice rather he acted as a legislator in changing the text of the bill to something it wasn't before and something that Congress wouldn't have passed.
-
-
The lengths of verbal acrobatics that were needed by justice Roberts to justify this proves that this isn't constitutional. The left felt like passing this law, and twisted an argument to justify it.
1 Recommendation
I'm one of those people who thinks this is going to hurt us as a nation. Big government is never a solution, they remove innovation, they promote expensive procedures over preventive. And with all the lobbying that goes on in Washington, this won't turn out well.
Liberty received a mortal wound yesterday.
-
Perhaps Mr Justice Roberts was unconsciously mulling over how history might view him, and he would prefer to be remembered not as is Mr Justice Taney [that's TAW-nee] but as is Mr Justice Warren.
1 Recommendation
Not that it will do any good in the present instance, but perhaps even without reading Justice Kennedy's dissent some people will have a better opinion of him.
-
-
An open letter to John Roberts:
Recommend
David E. Zamos Sr.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
6/28/2012 11:44 AM
Chief Justice John Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Re: the Affordable Health Care Act
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
Never in my life have I been so simultaneously dismayed, angered and frightened by any court decision as I am by the decision released today by the US Supreme Court concerning the captioned legislation the horrific implication of which are deeply troubling not only for myself, but also, for the future of my children and indeed, the very future of this country.
The degree of judicial activism you’ve exhibited in this case documents to my satisfaction that, in your view, the US Constitution is really quite optional and only to be consulted when convenient, which hardly provides for the existence or even the most oblique appearance of the very justice that the duties of your position require you to insure exist.
As a direct result of this decision, America has taken an enormous step down the road that leads to a complete and total loss of liberty, which is precisely what the Founding Fathers so insistently wanted to avoid as evidenced by the following quotes:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton
Accordingly, I regret to report that I find your decision in this case to be nothing short of shameful.
Sincerely
David E. Zamos Sr.
-
Please, allow me to co-sign your statement.
1 Recommendation
-
You two should hug.
2 Recommendations
-
-
Obviously, it's constitutional. Like the guy said, it's a tax. Even if wasn't constitutonal, so what. They haven't even pretended to follow the Constitution for 150 years. In retrospect, it's pretty clear that the Constitution was a political scam anyway, and a highly successful one.
Recommend
\
-
@David Bryon, with that kind of reasoning, you're left with virtually *nothing* being unconstitutional.
1 Recommendation
Instead of enumerated Federal powers, and all else being reserved to the States or to the People, it's enumerated rights and all else reserved to the Federal Government.
Of course, that's pretty much the way it's done nowadays, so who knows what the heck I'm complaining about.
Add a Comment
Your Profile Here…
Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.
Your profile gives you access to personal messages, connections, and Group invitations.
Your Groups Here…
Participate in engaging dialogue on topics that matter to you and other members of your group.
When you join groups you'll find them for easy access here. Learn new perspectives and educate each other.....
Most Active Discussions
-
Federal Reserve System
-
Libertarians
-
Question of the Day
- back to top
-
Customer Center:
Create an Account:
Help & Information Center:
-
About:
-
WSJ.com:
-
Tools & Formats:
-
Digital Network- WSJ.com
- Marketwatch.com
- Barrons.com
- SmartMoney.com
- AllThingsD.com
- FINS: Finance, IT jobs, Sales jobs
- BigCharts.com
- Virtual Stock Exchange
- WSJ Radio
- Professor Journal
- WSJ U.S. Edition
- WSJ Asia Edition
- WSJ Europe Edition
- WSJ India Page
Foreign language editions:
- WSJ Chinese
- WSJ Japanese
- WSJ Portuguese
- WSJ Spanish
- WSJ Deutschland
ACAP Enabled
Copyright ©2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved