Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

This is a Constitutional question. The very purpose of the Constitution is to withdraw most subjects from the vicissitudes of personal political ideology. Sorry, but just because you believe in a law does not inherently make it Constitutional.

So, Is this law Constitutional?

If you believe it is, please show the rest of us where the Constitution grants congress the power to impose the purchase of a product from a private 3rd party.

Since the constitution doesn't enumerate such powers, the law is not Constitutional. Period.

Congress may provide for the "general welfare" but only those specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So if you are counting on the general welfare clause, then you will be highly disappointed.

If you want this healthcare model then petition your STATE to enact such a law, OR petition THE PEOPLE to enact an amendment to our Constitution that actually enumerates the power to congress to mandate the purchase of insurance.

Originally posted by memnoch25
reply to post by The Old American

 

Actually, they do have that power. All three branches have equal power. They were created that way for the reasons the Affordable Care Act is in review now: so that one branch doesn't gain complete control over the citizenry. Each branch can check the power of the other two at any time.

Actually, they don't. Please show me, in the constitution, where it states that. If a piece of legislation makes it through the House and the Senate, then signed by the President and is unconstitutional, it is up the the People to elect a Congress to introduce new legislation.
Also, the Supreme Court, the third among equals, is actually subordinate to the regulations placed upon it by Congress.
(Article 3, section 2)
The situation we are in now is exactly what the authors of the Constitution feared. Read the Federalist Papers or Jefferson's notes on the Convention.

Marbury v. Madison established the SCOTUS as the supreme arbiter of what is or isn't constitutional. If Congress passes a law and the people believe it to be unconstitutional, they take it to lower federal court. If it is ruled constitutional, it's either stare decisis, or appealed to the state supreme court. If it is again ruled constitutional, and the complaintants want it reviewed, it can be heard by the SCOTUS. They have three judgements before them: stare decisis, overturn, or send back to the lower courts. The first two decisions are absolute.

Now, the Senate and the President can remove a SCOTUS judge, but they have to impeach them, which is a lengthy process. But all three do, in absolute fact, share power, and each, in absolute fact, can check one another's power.

You should learn.

/TOA

reply to post by memnoch25


The very same implied powers that Chief Justice John Marshall found for judicial review in Marbury v. Madison was then recognized by the same Court and Justice in McCollough v Maryland sixteen years later for Congress. Marshall pointed to the "Necessary and Proper Clause" as the evidence of that implied power for Congress to further their express powers, which was the precise legal reasoning Marshall had used in Marbury v. Madison to give evidence of an implied power of judicial review to further the express powers granted the Court by Constitution.

Much of the expansion of federal power has been through Congress not the Supreme Court, and that expansion is a direct result of the McCollough ruling.

More importantly, your argument is predicated on a democratic process not Constitutionally existing within the republic guaranteed the several states by that Constitution. The voter cannot just willy nilly vote away rights and this is the primary reason for judicial review, even if the Marbury ruling was more about a bicker between Madison, Marbury, a commission and delivered documents. Congress will, demonstrably, create legislation that denies or disparages rights, and when this happens the Supreme Court have the lawful authority to strike such legislation down regardless of its popularity.

Whatever court decisions happened in the past and whatever Obama said to the justice's face in the past seems to mean little to me right now. For some reason I have a bad feeling and I don't trust the SCOTUS. I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling Obamacare is here to stay.

It's basically a one man show in the supreme court. It's already assumed that 4 will vote to uphold and 4 will vote to strike it down. If we already have 4 justices in favor of this unconstitutional mandate... I really have little faith about what's to come.

Apparently, the dictator in chief (purposely placed in lower case) thinks that the 3rd branch of government is a waste. He already said he'd act if Congress didn't, basically saying the 2nd branch of government is a waste. This guy is dangerous, and November can't get here quick enough.

Originally posted by METACOMET
This is a Constitutional question. The very purpose of the Constitution is to withdraw most subjects from the vicissitudes of personal political ideology. Sorry, but just because you believe in a law does not inherently make it Constitutional.

So, Is this law Constitutional?

If you believe it is, please show the rest of us where the Constitution grants congress the power to impose the purchase of a product from a private 3rd party.

Since the constitution doesn't enumerate such powers, the law is not Constitutional. Period.

Congress may provide for the "general welfare" but only those specifically enumerated by the Constitution. So if you are counting on the general welfare clause, then you will be highly disappointed.

If you want this healthcare model then petition your STATE to enact such a law, OR petition THE PEOPLE to enact an amendment to our Constitution that actually enumerates the power to congress to mandate the purchase of insurance.

You have the right answer but the wrong reason. See the 9th Amendement. The Constitution specifically states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

If you look at the "enumeration" constraints re: the powers of the three Branches alone the Federal Government clearly has the right to demand that you participate in a mandatory health care program if such a law were passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by Supreme Court (if challenged).

However...the 9th Amendment is the key in which the "enumeration" clause is INVERTED when it comes to the civil liberties of the peasants. The rights of actual HUMAN'S need NOT be enumerated. Thus, removing your "freedom of choice" in purchasing health insurance IS, in fact, VERY UNCONSTITUTIONAL DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT ENUMERATED.

...Just an FYI in case you ever get in a debate with somebody who is really, really, up to snuff on the subject. Again...right answer...wrong reasoning.

No big deal, but I just thought you should know.

reply to post by Helmkat


We could fix healthcare by just going to cash pay only, and do away with all insurance. The prices would fix themselves. The worst thing that ever happened to healthcare is insurance, this has raised the cost of everything healthcare. When machines are $100,000 + , office workers wanting at least $40,000, Nurse staff wanting $80,000, radiologist wanting $50,000, Billing personel 3* $50,000. This does not include overhead, or the Doctors pay. With medicare reducing billable amount by 27% alot of my peers are dropping out of healthcare.
They just cannot make a living anymore, I saw this coming 5 yrs ago and went to straight cash; my practice is as strong as ever and overhead is low. We are going to lose alot of good Doctors thru all of this, healthcare reform as in this "obamacare" the way they are going to save money is by denying everything. In the stimulous package in 2014 we have to start electronic health records, which sounds good on the surface but when examined in detail it is a different story.......A doctor will scan your card and put in his findings and diagnosis then hit send........ after a couple of minutes a reply comes up with options of care....(a) (b) or (c).. the doctor then treats the patient in order of the options. If (a) is out of their scope of practice But (b) and (c) are he cannot skip (a) and goto (b) and (c) cause 1st offense is $50,000 fine 2nd is jail time. He must refer patient out to another dactor which specialty is (a). Now the patient goes to the doctor that speciALIZES in the (a) treatment and he puts his Diagnosis in and the reply comes back With the same treatments but in different order towhere he has got to refer the patient back to the orginal doctor. Round and round it goes........ The loop of healthcare. This was not even in Obamacare but was included in the stimulous package........I will try to find the more info...

Originally posted by six67seven
Whatever court decisions happened in the past and whatever Obama said to the justice's face in the past seems to mean little to me right now. For some reason I have a bad feeling and I don't trust the SCOTUS. I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling Obamacare is here to stay.

It's basically a one man show in the supreme court. It's already assumed that 4 will vote to uphold and 4 will vote to strike it down. If we already have 4 justices in favor of this unconstitutional mandate... I really have little faith about what's to come.

I don't think it is the Supreme Court you should be worried about. When it comes to the protection of rights, the recent SCOTUS has been solid, particularly given the Bond v. United States ruling. The real concern regarding this current challenge of the Affordable Health Care Act is the motives of the Plaintiff's who are challenging aspects of this legislation that have not yet been implemented.

There is a case to be made that since the beginnings of this nation, there have been conspirators who have used the legal process to create dummy challenges to bad legislation with the full on intent of losing. It is possible that the Plaintiffs in this case are conspiring to lose the case in hopes of dashing the hopes of any repeals later or further challenge of this contentious legislation.

However, because of the nature of when certain parts of this Act go into effect, the centerpiece of the legislation, and the Plaintiffs challenge is the mandatory purchase of insurance, this case at hand is an ex-ante argument, which is to say the Plaintiffs are making a slippery slope argument. They are arguing that the Act has the potential to abridge, disparage, or deny rights. Because it is a hypothetical, the Courts may be more inclined to disagree, but if this case were being argued from an ex-post argument, it would be after the fact, and then there would be Plaintiffs showing demonstrable harm caused by this Bill.

In reality, even if the SCOTUS upholds this legislation under the ex-ante argument, this does not preclude those who will more than likely have their rights trampled upon once the Act is implemented from challenging all over again. It will necessarily have to be an uphill battle in order to convince the SCOTUS to revisit the case, but if enough of us challenge the law again and can demonstrate rights violation, the Court will more than likely hear the case, and from an ex-post argument with strong evidence of rights violations, the second time will most likely be the charm.

Frankly, when Justices are awfully chatty and constantly interrupting defense attorneys with many questions, this is generally a bad sign for the government, and this is why Obama is nervously dissing the Court now. There is a pretty good chance the Court will strike it down under the ex-ante arguments.

Originally posted by cconn487
Unelected Congress. Because our election process for POTUS sure is and has always been fair and balanced.

I wanna hate on Obama so much, but the only reason we aren't at war with Iran right now is because he wants to let sanctions run their course. Thats the only thing I really commend him on as another war is ridiculous.

edit on 2-4-2012 by cconn487 because: (no reason given)

You do understand that the only reason he hasn't had us storming into Iran is because there is an election coming up right? It has nothing to do with sanctions or diplomacy.

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Obama is right, the Conservative Supreme Court seems to care about freedom
when it infringes upon corporate rights, AKA profits.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that those arrested for even minor violations may be
strip-searched before being admitted to jail, saying safety concerns outweigh personal
privacy rights.

The court’s conservatives ruled against a New Jersey man who was strip-searched after being
mistakenly arrested on an outstanding warrant.

Too bad they have their priorities backwards - healthcare is more dangerous than giving the
government the right to stick their finger up your butt.

So you don't think that people should be strip searched before processed into a jail? Come on, I am all for individual rights, but could you imagine the amount of drugs, weapons, etc.. that would be circulating around jails, and prisons if they could no longer strip search inmates.... This isn't an airport we are talking about here.

This is what‘s going to happen:

Kenneth (the 9th justice who will ultimately make the decision) will allow Obama-jad Care to go forward under CERTAIN CONDITIONS. He will end of removing a couple of the previsions American are up in arms over.

After those 1 or 2 previsions are removed, Americans will feel like they put Obama in his place and start patting each other’s backs. But mark my words, Obama will find a way of getting those monies from the American people. It will be subtle, and “We the Sheeple” will let it happen.

A similar scenario took place with Arizona’s illegal immigration laws. Some of the laws were upheld, but many were not.

Either way, at the end of the day, we will still have Obama-care. I guarantee it…!

Originally posted by Propulsion
This is what‘s going to happen:

Kenneth (the 9th justice who will ultimately make the decision) will allow Obama-jad Care to go forward under CERTAIN CONDITIONS. He will end of removing a couple of the previsions American are up in arms over.

After those 1 or 2 previsions are removed, Americans will feel like they put Obama in his place and start patting each other’s backs. But mark my words, Obama will find a way of getting those monies from the American people. It will be subtle, and “We the Sheeple” will let it happen.

A similar scenario took place with Arizona’s illegal immigration laws. Some of the laws were upheld, but many were not.

Either way, at the end of the day, we will still have Obama-care. I guarantee it…!

edit on 3-4-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)

Have you been reading any of the posts regarding the severability clause?

If only we knew what the founding fathers would think about the government mandating the purchase of health insurance.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in a Florida District Court. The pleadings, in part, read - The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage. State of Florida, et al. vs. HHS It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree. In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance. Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution. And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

www.forbes.com...

Did it ever occur to anyone that while it may be difficult for some of you (what, just two cars now?) among an enormous population of this country women and men are dying of cancer for lack of care, children are going without necessary medical treatment? I don't speak of anything I don't see on a daily basis. You might say that the lower classes are at fault for, what, not making and being successful in their own business, but I remind you all that these people did not create the system, and the rules of the system are not in their favor.

There was a time in this country where one might start with nothing and in a short while not be wealthy, but at least be able to live like a human being. Now we are asking people to "exist" for decades in filthy projects that they would have to spend the entire month working just to pay for. You will say that they should do something to change their circumstances, but what would you suggest? Welfare forbids college in many states, because you must be on a "work site" where you learn nothing. The educational system in the inner city cannot manage to teach more than 4 in 10 children at grade level, and grade level is a disgusting farce nation-wide. At best inner city children are prepared for welfare or jail.

You accuse Obama of "socialism", but any card carrying socialist would laugh until he puked at that. I can understand logically the danger of "forcing" Americans to share in the cost of healthcare, but all of Obama's enemies and critics have yet failed to put forth ANY plan that addresses the disgusting inequalities in this nation. Perhaps some people (lesser beings, I think) are comfortable going through their life without attempting to better the lives of others, but what Obama appears to be trying to do is improve his nation. Many of the arguments against the healthcare legislation appear to be valid, but on inspection come from groups who have interest in keeping insurance expensive (for their own profit). Which is more important globally and morally? Protecting the profit of a few, or protecting our fellow Americans from dying from curable conditions?

Until this nation can find a way to become balanced-that is, allowing the lesser of its citizens some way to earn enough money to pay for the outrageously high cost of living-there will be a growing danger of warfare. I encourage anyone who doesn't understand the squalor and heartbreak of the ghetto to spend some time there, as I am currently doing. You need to take your argument out of abstractions and theories and fears and bring it down to the human level. There are two Americas, and it is disgusting. And so many people are getting wealthy (or at least comfortable) off the misery of the poor. The prison boards, the private prisons farming out slave labor, the welfare politicians, the landlords who own enormous portfolios of overpriced, roach infested properties, the court system.... the list marches on and on. What you all consider trival sums (such as the new cost of renewing a liscence in NJ, $50) is sometimes one full quarter or third of the liquid cash that a family has to spend on such necessities as clothes and cleaning products. What do you suggest? Rant and rave about "socialism" but what do you suggest we do? Millions of Americans are living in a 3rd world right here in this nation of absurd plenty. Now they say that "owning Apple gagets is becoming standard, like 2.3 cars", yet there are millions who WILL go hungry today. You can't see them because of your clever zoning boards, and because of urban flight, but they are here. And they don't understand WHY they will have to fight for two decades just to be able to see their CHILDREN only many slightly better off. Living poor is not living at all. There is no joy, no hope, none of the things you all take for granted. What do you suggest?

Until there is a REAL alternative that puts people before the profit of a few, I'm on Obama's side. At least SOMETHING will get better for the starving, cancer-ridden millions. And maybe people will get dental care too. Ever wonder why so many poor people over the age of 30 have NO TEETH? Because the standard of medicaid care is to rip them out of your mouth rather than fill a cavity or perform the necessary work. If you can sleep with that, great. I can't. Maybe Obama can't either. One is on the side of the "angels" and one is on the side of self-interest and greed.

Is there a better way? One that will help people NOW, DEFINITLY, not "when the market gets to it"? Please let me know. Because I get that some of you are "libertarians" or whatever, but I hear mostly regurgitated Conservative nonsense, put forth by the 1% who will do anything to cling to their billions. Would it REALLY hurt them to scale down their opulance so that their fellow Americans don't die?

reply to post by jlv70


Okay, you've read an article about the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disable Seamen telling you what your opinion should be. Now why don't you read the act for yourself and explain to us what that act has to do with the 2,700 page Bill before the Court at this time. Perhaps you can show us where it was mandated that every person purchase insurance policies from private insurance companies or how it has anything at all to do with Obamacare. Good luck with that...or, you can just continue to allow others to tell you what your opinion is.

reply to post by jlv70


There is a fundamental difference. in “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.”, the mandate was predicted upon a particular form of employment. I never became a Seaman, therefore that mandate didn't apply. In Obamacare, the mandate applies IF YOU DRAW BREATH. The only way to avoid it is to die, which seems counterproductive.

I've found a third way - neither buy nor die. I will simply ignore it if the SCOTUS upholds it. Now, you may say "Butbutbut that's ILLEGAL!". And I say to you that when the legislators ignore the law themselves, the law no longer holds any meaning for any of us.

If they can ignore the law at will, so can I.

reply to post by hanyak69


And all those who cannot pay cash.... die on your doorstep?? Whatever happened to the "HEALER" who felt obligated to help the sick? The country doctor who would take care of your family in exchange for you doing carpentry work for him, or watching his children? My god, a crack dealer has more heart, he'll at least let you work off your debt or give you a short.

Has this world gone completely mad? The VERY THING THAT LET US EVOLVE SO FAR... our ability to cooperate and help one another, has gone out the window. Replaced by the most disgusting selfish my-needs-first mantra that is tearing the world to pieces. You sir, are very much a part of the problem, though since you do not see the world as a whole, only you vs them, you cannot understand that. We're doomed, man. But maybe you are just like Set, the god of Destruction, who though evil is still a force of Creation. Maybe once billions of starving poor people die out, or rebel and slaughter millions of rich, the population will drop low enough for us to become Human Beings again

While I fully support the three branches of government as a check and balance - I absolutely DO think that activist judges are a huge issue for the U.S. Think Koch brothers, judges Thomas and Scalia and Citizen's United.

reply to post by LadyTwoCrowns


Blah Blah Blah.

Talking points needed to put into response generated by LadyTwoCrowns?
1%
Cancer
Children and Woman dying
Not getting treatment
Poor
Lower class
0bama not a Socialist
0bama the savior
Have to take action

That sums up our response...

Sorry, but to mandate US Citizens to purchase healthcare or be fined is about as Unconstitutional as it gets.

The theory that 0bama has to take some action is better then no action is false as well.

The pitch that NO WHERE out there has anyone proposed ANY way to correct the Insurance issues is a bald face lie as well.

Go back and actually research this, before you spout off with nonsense.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


No, sorry, I am not familiar with that particular article, only with the hundreds of people in an impoverished neighborhood. But I think the point of the bill is to spread the cost.

If your problem is not with providing insurance to the dying, and really with the "language" of the bill, then feel free to present a viable alternative that saves the lives of millions of impoverished Americans. Your other option is to admit you don't give a damn, which I think you would do if you examined self for a moment, or just came clean