Instead of writing several articles on what I think about the Obamacare ruling, I decided to do a short video blog. Thanks for watching and will follow up with some articles in the near future.
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
When: Thursday, June 28th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific
What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.
The Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the progressive wing of the court to effectively uphold the individual mandate of the Obamacare law. In an unusually direct example of legislating from the bench, Justice Roberts argued that although the mandate to cover health insurance was unconstitutional as a penalty, it was constitutionally permissible under the Congress’ taxing powers.
This is an absurd argument that contradicts even President Obama’s own reasoning that the individual mandate is “not a tax.” Nowhere in the healthcare law itself was the individual mandate ever labeled as a tax, and for a member of a court to imply that the law is feasible under such an arrangement, boggles the mind.
But here we are America, on the cusp of seeing the biggest tax on the middle class in the nation’s history. All in the midst of an economy the Vice President recently called “a depression for millions.” And the market will continue to tank. The jobless rate will continue to rise. And insurance premiums will continue to soar. That has been the plan all along; to force us into the single payer system that Obama supports by hook or by crook.
It is inconceivable that the Congress has the authority to “tax” individuals into buying private health insurance or else be forced to enroll in the so-called “public option.”
What America is experiencing is a complete breakdown of our system of laws, devolving into a government ruled by a unified cohort of self-interested men. The law is being deformed to suit predetermined political ends, which are directed towards dissolving individual liberty and strengthening centralized power.
Thomas Jefferson was prescient when he declared of the argument that the judiciary is the final recourse against tyranny:
If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se [suicide pact]. […] The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted no where but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law.
And indeed, nine men in robes had their say in court today. But we concerned citizens will have our final say in the court of public opinion via the ballot box come November. For today’s ruling should not be taken as a demoralizing rejection of the Constitution’s principles, which live so long as they survive in our hearts.
But it is a sad day that one of the institutions of our government has so debased itself as to become a trivial appendage of tyrannical men. The Supreme Court has lowered itself to the same standard as politicized courts around the world, making the United States that much less exceptional.
It is not the first time the Supreme Court has sided with the abusive power of government over the freedom of the citizens, and it will not be the last, so long as the unvarnished progressive Justice Roberts presides in the court.
But this is a rallying cry to raise the American flag, and to reassert with all force that can be mustered to oppose growing tyranny in our once great country. Whether by the ballot box, or by state nullification, or by civil revolt, tyranny will be opposed in this nation. And a Supreme Court ruling is not going to change that political reality.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a controversial decision today upholding Barack Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act and it’s individual mandate requiring all citizens to purchase health care insurance. Now, if Americans really hate this law and what it imports, the only way to act is to elect a regime that will undo what has been done.
This decision by the Supreme Court, with a deciding vote cast by supposedly conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, is the worst decision ever, putting us in the same position as Greece when it comes to our economic future. The nation is filled with 50 percent of the population or better who believe that it is the government’s role to take care of individuals from cradle to grave. The other half of our society is either opposed to this view, solidly in favor of rugged individualism and the rights of man, or they are ignorant or indifferent.
Justice Roberts justified his decision by stating that it is the congress’s right to impose the mandate the same as a tax, even though the solicitor general’s horribly inept argument detailed that it was the administration’s belief that this is not a tax. This is yet another example of how total incompetence, i.e. the solicitor general, the attorney general, the president, can even prevail despite their colossal ineptitude.
Will this horrible decision stand, enslaving grandchildren and great grandchildren to the will of the state, like Soviet Russia, or Communist China? Or will the Tea Party Patriots wake up and remove this administration in the election in November?
You’re going to do something you’re not going to want to do, Tea Party! You’re going to have to show up and vote for someone you are luke-warm about, or are totally disgusted with, Governor Mitt Romney. I recommend you salve your wounded pride by supporting someone local you know, a conservative/libertarian who can beat his or her liberal/progressive opponent. And then, while you’re at it, put a check mark in the box for the other guy, Mitt. A conservative congress can lead our candidate around by the nose back to conservative and fiscal sanity. Barack Obama and his goonies are totally insulated and immune to the will of the people and will continue to drive us off a Euro-Cliff! If they can require us to pay a tax for a service we don’t want, what else are they going to tax us on in the next four years? Maybe they are going to force gun owners to pay a tax on their guns every year until they decide to turn them in? Will the Supreme Court uphold that? After all, now there is precedence.
Remember Fast and Furious? This administration and the horribly incompetent Eric Holder, Attorney General, allowed, even forced gun shops to sell assault rifles to drug kingpins in order to create a crisis for Mexico and the US. That crises, which no one should let go to waste, would force the issue of gun control back into the public forum and allow Barack and his cronies to seize our guns. This administration is deadly and dangerous, and totally untrustworthy when it comes to safeguarding the rights of citizens. It’s time that they are gone. Remember to vote in November and get your friends to vote. Dead people, illegal aliens and felons will be voting for the progressives, so the more the merrier!
At 10:07 today, the Supreme Court ruled, against all expectations, to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Chief Justice Roberts joined the left side of the Court, causing a 5-4 ruling, which upheld the individual mandate. Justice Kennedy did join the minority and vote against the ACA. The Court ruled that the individual mandate is a tax and is therefore constitutional.
In the words of the SCOTUS blog:
“The bottom line: the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government‘s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read,”
Details are still emerging, however, this ruling can be read as nothing but an overwhelming defeat for President Obama and his big government policies.
One possible outcome of the Obamacare ruling is particularly worrisome – finding only the individual mandate unconstitutional, but not why you think.
Tomorrow morning every news agency, media outlet, pundit and analyst will be eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. While I sincerely hope that the whole thing is turned into a 2,700 page footnote in history, I am concerned that what will survive will lead to a socialist healthcare system in America because healthcare insurance companies (payers) will no longer be able to function.
If only the individual mandate is struck down, but the remaining provisions left in-tact, insurance companies will be forced to seek those costs from the few non-pre-existing customers left – us. Our premiums will “necessarily skyrocket” to cover the costs associated with those regulations. Here’s how it works:
The requirement that insurers must offer coverage to those with pre-existing conditions at a “fair price” means people no longer have to need to carry insurance while they are healthy. They only need purchase it when they get cancer, get really hurt in a car accident, fall off a ladder or whatever. Then they can just jump on to our health plan at near the costs the rest of us pay. So they magically get $10,000 or more in urgent care, critical care, surgery, x-rays, MRIs, CAT scans, hospital stay, post-care and more while having paid only one month’s premiums into the risk pool. Where does the rest of those tens of thousands of dollars come from? Easy – the rest of the middle class who has been dutifully over-paying for too much coverage so that Freddie Freeloader can then drop his coverage after he’s healed up from his drunken-binge car wreck.
Why would anyone carry coverage until they get really sick or hurt? Just pay doctor’s visits out of pocket until you get really sick or hurt, then just jump on a plan for a few months until you’re better then leave. As this behavior increases so will premiums – the money has to come from somewhere. In time, no one will keep insurance long-term which will precipitate the demise of insurance payers – at least in their current form.
Most middle and low-income earners don’t treat healthcare like a responsibility. They don’t put away for future expenses like they do for college or retirement because insurers do that for them. The next logical step for insurance companies will likely turn their worlds upside-down – payers won’t be paying first anymore.
I would expect that payers will go to only high-deductible plans. They will exist in tiers so that the higher your deductible, the smaller your premium. This might allow them to charge incredible premiums for low-deductible plans so that even those with pre-exiting conditions have to pay the initial five, six, ten or twenty thousand dollars of expenses out of their own pockets before the payer starts kicking in.
Employers may choose to no longer provide coverage as the premium increases make it impossible for them to operate their businesses. Americans will have to provide for themselves. The noise from the electorate will increase in volume demanding that something be done about the insurance company profits and Congress will swoop in to rescue them. Voila – single payer, government-provided health care is born at the demand of the American people.
This was the intent of the law from its inception. Kill the payers, enrage the voters, become the only answer to a problem Congress created. The Supreme Court may just speed up what was the ultimate goal.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that states cannot create laws that are intended to make up for a federal government’s failure to enforce them which has far reaching implications beyond SB1070.
Consider the current administration’s decision to not enforce deportation statutes and The Defense of Marriage Act. Whether Americans agree or disagree with those laws, this decision means that states do not have the right to create the same or stricter laws and enforce them within their borders.
Now consider other federal laws and amendments to the Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Taking SCOTUS’ decision into account, are states now banned from creating more restrictive laws on gun carry and ownership? It would seem to be so. The premise that the second amendment states that this right may not be infringed is the basis upon which many second amendment challenges by groups like the NRA, CALGUNS and more have asserted there cases. Perhaps the Supreme Court has just strengthened every one of those cases.
The Government’s argument was that federal law preempted or “trumped” the state’s efforts to strengthen immigration laws. Is that not what several states have done with the second amendment?
Many states such as California have chosen to write environmental regulations stronger than those posed by the EPA. Since the EPA is the federal legal authority, do states no longer have the right to create and enforce state-level laws more restrictive than those set by Congress and implemented by the executive branch?
The SCOTUS decision on SB1070 seems in the short term to be a weakening of State’s rights and an empowerment of the federal government. While it seems to be a protection of individual liberties in these cases, it may also limit the ability of states to experiment with lighter or stricter laws – an inherent characteristic of our governing framework. The soft spot may be that no state may write a law that trumps the federal which gives our central government even more motivation to create more laws and bureaucracy. The more laws the misfits in D.C. create, the less power left in the hands of the states.
Focused attention on Congressional elections will be required this year – very focused.
BREAKING: It appears the only part of the Arizona SB1070 law that has been upheld is that police can check the papers. In ruling the court has said that a state does not have the right to undermine the federal government. Depending on your personal opinion this was a partial win for Arizona or a net win for Obama. Supreme Court AZ vs United States
Section 3- Unconstitutional. Results: A person in the US does not have to carry identification papers. Federal law requires a legal alien to carry a ‘green card’.
Section 5- Unconstitutional. Results: Cannot be a violation for the state to say it is illegal for any person to look for a job.
Section 6- Unconstitutional. Results: Cannot routinely stop a person to check immigration status.
Section 2-Sent back to 9th Circuit: If a person has been stopped with reasonable suspicion of a crime it is okay to ask for identity/proof of residency.
This week, the highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare’s constitutionality is expected as early as Monday or as late as Thursday.
Depending on the ruling, Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida could turn out to be the biggest Supreme Court decision, possibly since the New Deal era NLRB v. Jones & Loughlin Steel. This case, one of the first cases upholding FDR’s policies after his threat to pack the court, is the reason for the current broad interpretation of the commerce clause. A ruling against Obamacare could overturn this interpretation.
There are three possible ways that the Supreme Court could rule.
- They could uphold Obamacare. If this is the case, it will most likely be because Obamacare is considered a tax, not implemented until 2013, and the Court will rule they cannot adjudicate on it until it goes into affect.
- Part of the law will be overturned. If this is the case, most likely the individual mandate will be struck down.
- Obamacare in its entirety will be overruled. Based on oral arguments, this will be because they see the power of a federal government that can tell you to purchase insurance as an absolute and unlimited government.
If the judges do rule against Obamacare, either in part or in whole, it could spell the era of a new Supreme Court.
The oral arguments of the case are interesting, chiefly because the majority of the discussion over the laws validity relies upon the Constitution. The federal government maintains they have the power to issue a purchase mandate through the taxing power of the Commerce Clause and through the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. As it happens, the language of both clauses proves exactly the opposite.
The taxing power of Congress is limited to three specific purposes- paying debts, providing for the common defense and providing for the general welfare of the United States (meaning the welfare of the nation, not social welfare programs). As the Tenth Amendment states, the powers not expressly given to the federal government, if they are not prohibited to the states, lie with the states. Obviously, this makes a federal purchase mandate, as a tax, unconstitutional since it is not a power granted to the federal government.
Similarly, the Commerce Clause states Congress can regulate commerce among the several states. The intention of this, as defined by The Federalist Papers, is to oversee that commerce between states, such as a transaction between Connecticut and Maryland. The purpose of this is not to regulate commerce within states. Again, based on the original intent, the purchase mandate is clearly unconstitutional.
However, this case is significant specifically because of the Constitutional arguments. The majority of cases argued before the Supreme Court are adjudicated based on case law- that is laws and precedents established by the rulings of previous cases, not their Constitutionality. This of course, is not in line with the definition of the Supreme Court’s function as explained in The Federalist Papers, which is to determine if the implementation of laws is in line with the Constitution. But, the strictly Constitutional arguments in regards to the healthcare law may set a new precedent. Whether the Supreme Court rules for or against the law, the ruling will be based on what powers the federal government has, through the Constitution, over its citizens.
The second reason this ruling is important is because it involves the commerce clause. The Supreme Court’s ruling in NRLB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel is seen as one of the most pivotal cases in this country’s history. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled that even though business activities may be strictly intrastate, if they have close ties to interstate commerce, Congress had the authority to ‘protect’ that commerce from burdens and regulations. This gave Congress the authority to legislate on virtually anything business related, because under that interpretation, basically all commerce is considered interstate. This Supreme Court case really began the era of a broader, more powerful federal government. But, if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate, this precedent could be reversed. If the Supreme Court denies the constitutionality of the individual mandate on the grounds of the Commerce Clause, they are essentially saying that something you purchase in one state is not interstate commerce just because you may use it in another state. This could be the catalyst that starts to shrink much of the power that Congress and the executive office received from the New Deal.
There is of course the possibility that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of the healthcare law. Hopefully, if this is the case, it will be because they consider the individual purchase mandate a tax, and cannot rule on taxes that are not in effect yet. If however, they rule that the individual mandate is constitutional, this could become the era of a federal government that has virtually no limits. Even if that’s the ruling, it’s likely Obamacare will be challenged again over whether the contraception coverage mandate violates religious freedom.
Whatever the ruling turns out to be, it has the makings to be a case as significant as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, and could substantially alter the power of the federal government.
-The ridiculous bias at MSNBC
-Obama’s Gift Registry is the new “free lunch”.
-Questions we SHOULD be asking about Obamacare.
-Feel free to call in and tell us what’s been grinding your gears this week and/or who you think should win the “Veepstakes”.
News networks have been teasing the possibility that today the Supreme Court might make the decision on Obama’s health care reform law public, but it was not to be.
The on the pivotal health care law had been expected to be included in releases this morning, but it was not. The decision is expected no later than the end of the month and may surface as soon as the Thursday press event.
On Monday, three decisions were released: Williams v. Illinois was affirmed, Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter was overturned, Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. was upheld, and Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak was upheld.
Now for the waiting, will Americans hear whether all or part of the Affordable Care Act will be deemed unconstitutional on Thursday or will the court make a decision at all before they go on summer recess at the end of the month?
With the president’s signature “achievement” on life support, The New York Times decided to bury the story in the Friday front-page article “Approval Rating for Justice Hits Just 44% in New Poll.” Times reporters Adam Liptak and Allison Kopicki attacked the most prestigious institution in the country, claiming “the public is skeptical about life tenure for the justices, with 60 percent agreeing with the statement that appointing Supreme Court justices for life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power. One-third agreed with a contrary statement, that life tenure for justices “is a good thing because it helps keep them independent from political pressures.”
While the Times seems to insist the court is losing public prestige, it doesn’t want to report on how ObamaCare is still a flop with the public. They save this for paragraph 16: “41 percent of Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn the entire health care law passed in 2010, while another 27 percent want the court to throw out the part of the law that requires most people to buy coverage. The poll, conducted by the New York Times and CBS News, reveals that more respondents disapprove of the law than approve, 48 percent to 34 percent.”
Moreover, ” that marks only a one-percentage-point uptick in those who disapprove of the law since the last poll was conducted, in mid-April, but a five-percentage-point drop in those who approve.”The coup de grace is “the percentage of people saying they want the court to throw out the entire law rose four points, from 37 percent to 41 percent, since the last CBS News/New York Times poll was conducted. About a quarter in the new poll—24 percent—said they want the whole law upheld.
How is this possible? Well, as George Will stated on This Week two years ago, 85% of Americans already had coverage. Furthermore 95% of that 85% said that they were satisfied with their health care coverage. Even Politifact said that was mostly true! In addition, we’ve had an unemployment rate that has been above 8% for over thirty-eight months. During twenty-six of those months, the rate was above 9%. This is after a $830 billion dollar stimulus with interest rates at zero. Factor in a trillion dollar new entitlement, Obamacare, and we have a recipe for economic anxiety.
PS: At least the New York Times published their polling numbers in connection with a front-page story. CBS buried the poll results, reporting them only on Friday’s early-early CBS Morning News:
HAZEL SANCHEZ, anchor: And later this month, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on President Obama`s health care overhaul. The law has become a key campaign issue. A just released CBS News/New York Times poll finds forty-one percent of Americans want to see the entire health care law overturned. Fifty-five percent believe Justices will decide the case based on personal or political views. And concerning Arizona`s tough immigration law that allows police to check the immigration status of anyone who is lawfully stopped, fifty-two percent believe the law is “about right.”
Perhaps it’s time someone explained the concept of federalism to President Obama. Or even encouraged him to read the Constitution he swore to protect when he entered office. Yesterday, during a press conference, President Obama stated that the Supreme Court overturning his Affordable Care Act would be an ‘unprecedented’ move by the ‘unelected’ members of the Court. His justification for warning the Court from overturning the bill- it was popular in Congress. These comments are just one episode in the ongoing saga of the President’s bizarre logic and incomprehension of the machinations of the American political system.
Obama stated that overturning the legislation would be unprecedented because it was passed by a majority of the democratically elected Congress. The Supreme Court adjudicates on legislation that is going into effect. In order for this to occur, the majority of Congress has to approve legislation. Bills can’t be approved by a minority of Congress. They simply die on the floor of the chamber. They are not brought before the Supreme Court to have their Constitutionality decided. Therefore, every bill that the Supreme Court scrutinizes has been approved by a majority of Congressional members. The Affordable Care Act is not an exception. This is not unprecedented- this is a policy that has been in places since the Constitution was ratified in 1788.
As to the Supreme Court being unelected, this is half –truth. Judges are first nominated by the president, and then vetted and approved or disapproved by the Senate. Last time I checked, the Senate is democratically elected by the people. They are supposed to represent the voices of their constituents. So, while Supreme Court justices may not be directly elected by the people, in theory, the people’s voice is still present in the process. Interestingly, when Newt Gingrich talked about changing Supreme Court rules to make judges directly accountable for their voters, he was crazy and had no respect for the Constitution. Apparently, the same standard doesn’t apply to Obama.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but popular opinion, Congressional or public, has absolutely no influence on how the Supreme Court adjudicates. Rather, they are there to decide if a piece of legislation is Constitutional in application. It doesn’t matter if every citizen in the country wants the individual mandate (over two thirds of citizens don’t), if the power to enforce a policy is not granted to the government through the Constitution, the Supreme Court has a responsibility to overturn it. It’s that simple. So, Obamacare’s popularity in Congress should have no bearing on the Court’s decision.
And that’s how federalism works. The Supreme Court is not directly answerable to the people purposely to isolate them from the turbulent emotions of public opinion. It is Congressional members who are supposed to take the views of their constituents into account and legislate accordingly. The Supreme Court is there to reign in their actions, not to mirror public opinion. That’s what’s outlined in the Constitution, and that’s how the federalist system works. If Obama actually read the Constitution, or the words of the Founders that he so despises, he would know this. But then he wouldn’t have the scapegoat of judicial activism to blame the failure of his key legislation on. Poor Barack.
Since the Supreme Court is in the middle of hearing a case that will decide if our republic is going to continue or will degenerate into a tyranny of unlimited government power, this seems like a good time to go back and look at some of Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts on how we should interpret the Constitution.
In a letter to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson on June 12, 1823, Jefferson gave him this advice:
“On every question of construction, we should carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
This seems like a pretty solid, common sense approach to interpreting the Constitution, but we can be fairly certain that it’s not what we’ll see from the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare. When it comes out later this year, read through it and count how many times the justices discuss the writings of the Founders – or even mention them.
This concept couldn’t be more important because this case would be a slam dunk if it were decided based on the Founders‘ intent. It’s simply unreasonable to assume that our Constitution could possibly have been ratified had the people at the time believed that it gave the federal government the power to force them to buy a product.
But there is a significant chance that Obamacare will be upheld because the decision is almost guaranteed to be filled with references to the decisions of other courts and obscure legal concepts that are only loosely related to the Constitution itself. Which brings us to another piece of advice that Thomas Jefferson had for Justice Williams that day:
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subleties which make anything mean everything or nothing, at pleasure.”
But this is exactly what we are doing by interpreting the Constitution based on previous court decisions and how individual words can be twisted instead of relying on original intent. After years of this approach, the Constitution now means everything and nothing all at the same time. If Obamacare is upheld, it will mean that a document that was written to put strict limits on the government is now being used to justify giving that same government unlimited power. Yay freedom!