Ripping out Obamacare by the roots

[Geee]

Washington Times:

Three days after the second anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments about its constitutionality. As the author of the original bill to repeal Obamacare, I am convinced that no decision in recent history will have a more profound impact on our country. I do not make that assertion lightly, even in the shadow of other landmark cases.

 

 

If the Supreme Court chooses to affirm Obamacare, it will be an endorsement of the single largest expansion of government entitlements, government power and government social engineering in American history. No one should believe Obamacare is simply a bill to increase health care coverage. Instead, it is this president’s method of exacting social change on the fabric on our country. For this reason, I introduced a bill to repeal it minutes after its passage. Additionally, this is why the Supreme Court should find its mandate unconstitutional.

 

The Obama White House and campaign (sometimes one and the same) are fully aware of the significance of the decision and recently launched their own public-relations campaign to demonstrate public support for the bill. Yet the bill remains widely unpopular with the American public.

 

 

A new CNN poll found that 59 percent oppose the law. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that 72 percent think the individual mandate, the heart of the bill, requiring all Americans to purchase insurance or pay a fine, is unconstitutional. That belief is based on the American spirit, which burns in each one of us, that there is something wrong with the government requiring us to purchase goods or services - unprecedented in U.S. history. It was this violation of “spirit” that sparked the Tea Party movement’s strength and was the impetus for my founding of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus.

 

The bill already is having devastating effects on the economy, particularly in the area of job creation. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce Small Business Outlook Survey conducted in July 2011 noted that 33 percent of business owners identified the health care law as either the greatest or second-greatest obstacle to hiring new employees. By January 2012, another U.S. Chamber survey saw that number rise to 74 percent.

[raygun]

“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”

 

This by SCOTUS Justice Kennedy query was an almost verbatim recital of the fundamental argument being made against the individual mandate. Not merely in his brief to the Court, but later during his oral argument Clement argued that Obama’s health-care law “represents an unprecedented effort by Congress to compel individuals to enter commerce in order to better regulate commerce.”

 

That being said, nevertheless and all that (and what not), I can't believe we're even having this discussion at this point in our nation's history. I have three words for everyone sincerely interested in a life that preserves the ideals which this nation merely pays lip service: "Move To France". Even that notwithstanding, they'd have still hae the legacy of Bastiat looming over 'em, eh?

[Valin]

WSJ: A Constitutional Awakening

A bad day for unlimited government at the High Court.

 

Tuesday's two hours of Supreme Court oral arguments on ObamaCare's individual mandate were rough-going for the government and its assertions of unlimited federal power. Several Justices are clearly taking seriously the Constitution's structural checks and balances that are intended to protect individual liberty.

 

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli faced aggressive questioning from Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts, the trio pegged as possible swing votes in favor of the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But they failed to elicit from Mr. Verrilli some limiting principle under the Commerce Clause that distinguishes a health plan mandate from any other purchase mandate that would be unconstitutional. The exchanges recalled the famous moment in Citizens United when the government claimed it could ban books to regulate political speech.

 

(Snip)

 

The Court has always balanced federal and state power by distinguishing between pressure and coercion. ObamaCare crosses that line. The conditions of new Medicaid conscript the states into involuntary servitude to the federal government's policy goals, in this case national health care. They would no longer be independent and autonomous units within the federalist system but agents of Washington.

 

(Snip)

[logicnreason]

This is going to be interesting....and, despite arguments...the outcome of this case is surely uncertain at best.

 

But can anyone reading and inhabiting this website disagree with the argument that the stain and his regime absolutely must go if for no other reason than this fact: in the next four to five years, it is highly probable that at least two judges of the SC will be "retiring". Should the stain be left where it is, that means two replacement SC judges will be named. Guess - if you will - what their political persuasion will be!!!!

The stain and the regime must be eradicated....NOW! (or at least no later than Nov. of this year.)

[Valin]

@logicnreason

 

Just one of the reasons he was to move back to Hyde Park.

 

Two points....A. 2nd terms rarely turn out well for the President. B. Nominees to the court, particularly the Supreme Court...The President Purpose...the Senate Disposes.

The President want to do something, nominate someone, he sends it to the Senate and they say...'Well that certainly is interesting, but I have a better idea.' It is designed to slow things down, to gum up the works....and even though it may drive us crazy often, this is a good thing.