Obamacare Upheld By Supreme Court

[Restorium2]

[cristinew]

republicans seem to never speak up about mittcare

[AKenewell]

I did read your vey legnthy citaion and the facts there do not agree with what you've posted. You are presenting opinion as fact.

 

Have you read Obamacare? If not you really don't know opinion from fact. Here you go..get the facts..there's 2,407 pages worth.

 

http://www.healthcar...-protection.pdf

[cristinew]

I do not think anyone has read it,, or any other bills that get passed by republicans or democrats

[Celliach]

At over 2000 pages I doubt anyone posting on this forum has read and understood the whole law.

[AKenewell]

republicans seem to never speak up about mittcare

 

Romneycare vs Obamacare…

 

 

Dr Matt's Analysis of the Basic Differences

Between RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare

 

Nine Basic Differences Between

RomneyCare & ObamaCare

by Matt Moody, Ph.D.

 

Although the Massachusetts Healthcare Law is nicknamed "RomneyCare," to be fair to Mitt Romney, the law was not shaped entirely according to his recommendations.

 

For example, Governor Romney vetoed eight portions of RomneyCare to include an Employer Mandate, which were eventually all overridden by the a Democrat-dominant State Legislature. Also, from the day it was established in 2006, what has become of mandatory healthcare in Massachusetts is a function of what the present Governor and Legislature have made of it.

 

Nine Differences Between ObamaCare and RomneyCare

 

1) The bill called "ObamaCare" is 2070 pages long, and RomneyCare was only 70 pages in 2006. So there are 2,000 more pages of differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.

 

2) RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all mandate imposed upon all states, regardless of each state's needs and economic conditions.

 

3) ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government beyond the "few and defined" powers delegated by the Constitution, thus diminishing State powers; in comparison, RomneyCare invokes "numerous and indefinite" powers to mandate that citizens be insured, thus preventing some from "gaming the system" — where free-riders were formerly getting government to pay for medical bills when they could afford to buy insurance in the first place.

 

4) One Trillion dollars is needed to fund ObamaCare — 500 Billion in higher taxes & 500 Billion borrowed from Medicare. In contrast, taxes were not increased to fund RomneyCare, nor were funds borrowed from Medicare.

 

 

5) RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt Romney balanced the state budget; whereas, ObamaCare was enacted during a time when Barack Obama and a Democrat-dominant Congress didn't even try to balance a budget and didn't even propose a budget, but engaged in massive federal spending, unprecedented in the history of the United States.

 

6) RomneyCare is constitutional by virtue of the "numerous and indefinite" powers reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution; ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited federal powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

 

7) In a June 2011 GOP Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN, Mitt Romney said that "if people don't like it in our state, they can change it." In contrast, Barack Obama has consistently resisted the repeal of his healthcare bill, even when the majority of Americans want to repeal ObamaCare.

 

 

8) Mitt Romney passed Massachusetts Healthcare with bipartisan input and support; in comparison, Barack Obama imposed ObamaCare upon Fifty States using a partisan approach that largely excluded input from Republican Senators and Congressmen — and continues to exclude input from "We the People."

 

9) While the majority of Americans don't want Obama-Care, the majority of citizens in Massachusetts support RomneyCare. According to a 2011 survey by Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe, 63% of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, while 21% say they oppose it.

 

The Massachusetts Health Care Plan is in place because the citizens of Massachusetts wanted it in 2006, and still want it in 2011. Mitt Romney applied business solutions to make it happen without raising taxes. While a clear majority like the law, nevertheless, any citizen of Massachusetts who doesn't like RomneyCare has 49 other options to break free of the Massachusetts healthcare mandate.

 

Federalism

 

For the 21% of Massachusetts citizens who don't prefer RomneyCare, moving to another State to escape perceived government oppression only works when 49 other States have constitutional power to create their own unique "experiments" in governance. Thus, when a limited Federal Government steadily morphs into a dominating Central Government, constitutionally-defined Federalism slowly erodes. James Madison succinctly described the principle of Federalism with these words:

 

The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

 

The opposite of Federalism occurs when Americans have an overreaching central government that, in the words of Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, "seeks to plan and control virtually every aspect of our lives and our economy, from health care, to energy, to automobile manufacturing, to banking and insurance." When "We the People" look to central government to take care of every problem, the power and importance State governance is diminished — which is the opposite of Federalism.

 

Here's how Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis described Federalism:

 

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system

that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose,

serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic

experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

 

In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), Justice Brandeis wrote the opinion for a 6-2 majority; Brandeis ruled that there is no such thing as a "federal general common law" in cases involving diversity jurisdiction (interstate lawsuits). This Supreme Court decision overturned Swift v. Tyson (1842) — precedent law which had been in place for 96 years.

 

 

This landmark ruling meant that federal courts must apply the law of the State where the legal injury occurred. This High Court decision strengthened the sovereignty of States, and reversed a trend toward centralizing government power.

 

As established by the Founding Fathers through the United States Constitution, federal government was intended to be limited with "few and defined" powers. But in direct defiance of Original Intent, ever since the New Deal, federal government has gradually grown larger and larger, gaining more and more power — that's not Federalism, that's not what the Founding Fathers put in place.

 

Why RomneyCare Is Constitutional and ObamaCare is Unconstitutional

 

Some pundits write about Governor Romney's "magic act" — where Romney campaigns against an ObamaCare bill that is supposedly identical to the law in Massachusetts. PolitiFact.com reports that the two bills have strong similarities, but the biggest difference is being ignored! — the Constitutional Difference.

 

Mitt said in March 2010 interview, “People often compare Obama's plan to the Massachusetts plan. They’re as different as night and day.” Romney's right! Especially when one deems a Constitutional Bill as "day" and an Unconstitutional Bill as "night."

 

At the level of legislation, RomneyCare and ObamaCare could be identical to the "t," and still ObamaCare would be Unconstitutional because Article 1, Section 8 does not empower federal government to install a HealthCare Mandate for all 50 States; in contrast, the 10th Amendment does empower State governments to do virtually anything that a majority of State citizens want, and will vote for.

 

One reason why many Americans perceive RomneyCare to be a problem for Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential Election is because they may not understand the meaning of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, State Police Powers, and Federalism.

 

Sweeping aside second-hand spin from ideologues, name-callers, and haters, the question of Constitutionality for RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare is best answered by . . . surprise . . . the very words of the Constitution, augmented by other wise words from the Founding Fathers.

 

So, what is a mandate (noun), and what does it mean to mandate (verb)?

 

Mandate (n.) from Latin mandatum "commission, order," and within the context of elections, mandate is "implicit approval of a policy as conferred by voters to winners of an election."

 

Mandate (v.) from Latin mandare "to order, commit to one's charge," from manus "hand"

(as in manual) + dare "to give" — literally "to give into one's hand."

 

The word "mandate," shares the same etymological root as the words "command" and "mandatory." So a mandate is a required rule, regulation, or law that people must follow or face consequences — for if there were no consequences attached, a mandate would have no "teeth" to cause people to conform to a mandatory rule, regulation, or law.

 

All laws that carry consequences for failure to obey ARE "mandates." The United States is a nation of laws. American citizens are required to obey laws, and if they choose not to obey those laws, then Governments mandate (require) consequences — legal constraints that make those laws mandatory.

 

Mandates are mandatory commands via laws legislated by authority, and enforced by consequences.

 

Every State is swimming in mandates: States mandate that children and teenagers must attend school. States mandate that those who drive cars must purchase liability insurance. States mandate that people can't rob banks, steal cars, or commit murder without facing mandatory consequences.

 

WHY do States establish mandates?

 

Some Libertarians view most mandates as infringements upon Liberty. In most cases, a mandate will protect a higher Liberty in exchange for giving up a lower Liberty. For Example: Governments mandate speed limits along the roads we travel, and such speed limits increase our Liberty to travel safely. Governments mandate that you and I cannot steal from a neighbor, and such mandates increase our Liberty to own property and enjoy our property, and NOT have it stolen.

 

Mandates are NOT made to oppress the People, but to protect Higher Liberties. Further, every Mandate is established by the approval of the People, else that Mandate will ultimately be changed via Voting and Elections.

 

Why is it Constitutional for States to enact such broad mandates? To answer this question, we must examine the words of the Constitution and of our Founding Fathers.

 

James Madison, principle author of the Constitution, said this of Government Powers:

 

The powers delegated by the Constitution

to the federal government are few and defined.

Those which are to remain in the State governments

are numerous and indefinite.

 

 

 

The Constitution delegates to the federal government "few and defined" powers — also called enumerated powers — as set forth in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The federal government can legislate mandates, but can only do so constitutionally within the constraints of the "few and defined" powers that have been "delegated" by the Constitution.

 

In contrast to the federal governments limited powers, the Constitution of the United States has explicitly delegated "numerous and indefinite" powers to the States through the 10th Amendment. With State governments having numerous and indefinite powers beyond the federal government's enumerated powers, who then, will check State governments from abusing such broad powers?

 

ANSWER: We the People possess the power to check governments from abusing and usurping power.

 

For the People to "secure" inalienable rights of life, liberty & happiness, the Declaration of Independence affirms that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."

 

It's the People who empower governments, and it's the people who change governments:

 

"That whenever any form of government is destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

 

We the people possess the power to check abuses of government. Thomas Jefferson said:

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

 

Why is RomneyCare Constitutional? By virtue of powers delegated by the Constitution, the 50 States have numerous and indefinite powers to legislate mandates to secure inalienable rights. And any time citizens of Massachusetts don't want RomneyCare, they can institute new Government to change it.

 

Articles claiming that RomneyCare is an "albatross around Mitt Romney's neck," focus on similarities between ObamaCare and RomneyCare at the level of legislation, and skip the Constitutional question. The faulty logic goes like this: If ObamaCare is bad, then RomneyCare is bad too — because they are essentially the same (in terms of the individual mandate and other legislative details).

 

As to sameness, please reread the Nine Differences listed previously, and then realize the bottom line: RomneyCare is Constitutional because States have "numerous and indefinite" powers; whereas, ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited federal powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

 

Why the ObamaCare Mandate is Unconstitutional

 

ObamaCare is Unconstitutional because the 2,700 page bill is not just about Affordable Health Care for all Americans; instead, ObamaCare is an enormous usurpation of power that pushes far beyond the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

 

To justify ObamaCare, the federal government must find authority to do so in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution — wherein the federal government is delegated enumerated powers that are, as James Madison described, "few and defined" in contrast to State powers that are "numerous and indefinite."

 

In both the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the federal government has tried to find justification for the Obama-Care Mandate in three clauses from Article 1 Section 8 — the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.

 

Here's why each of these clauses fail to justify the ObamaCare Mandate.

 

Commerce Clause

 

The Federal Government has tried to justify ObamaCare through the "Commerce Clause." Here's how the United States Constitution describes that power:

 

The Congress shall have Power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,

and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

Here is why invoking the Commerce Clause fails: It is clear that "doing nothing" is NOT an act of commerce. Thus "doing nothing" cannot be regulated by the Federal Government via the Commerce Clause. In contrast, if the act of "doing nothing" on the part of some citizens, impacts Life, Liberty, and Happiness with a State, that State can legislate Mandates for the benefit of all State residents.

 

But the federal issue is not that easy: One Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, raised a question of "undercutting" in regard to regulating Interstate Commerce. Hence the question arises: Will an American citizen's choice to NOT purchase a good or service (health insurance) have an effect upon Interstate Commerce that "undercuts" a broader regulatory scheme of Interstate Commerce?

 

But this question jumps the gun! The "act of non-commerce" that is alleged to undercut a broader regulatory scheme, is a commerce question originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate, in the first place. This means, that the Federal Government is both attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (mandating everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created."

 

In other words, the constitutional regulation of "Commerce . . . among the several States" is Commerce that the States originate/create; thereafter, the Federal Government has constitutional power to regulate that State-Initiated Commerce.

 

So even if "doing nothing" does have an effect upon the regulation of Interstate Commerce, this legal logic leap frogs over the prior question, a question that the Supreme Court has never ruled on: Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power in the first place, to require individual citizens to purchase a product or service — can the Fed force citizens to buy health insurance?

 

According to the Federal Judges who have ruled in the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the answer is "no!" — the Commerce Clause does not justify the regulation of non-commerce among the States — acts of non-commerce originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate in the first place.

 

Necessary & Proper Clause

 

The Federal Government has tried to justify Obama-Care through the Constitution's "Necessary and Proper Clause," which grants Congressional powers that are not necessarily enumerated powers but always directly buttress an enumerated power. In an 1819 Supreme Court decision, Justice John Marshall wrote that Congressional Authority via the Necessary and Proper Clause, while broad, "its authority is not unbridled." Thus Congress has only power to enact laws that are "within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." The Necessary and Proper Clause states:

 

The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper

for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution

in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

Notice that Congress is empowered to make "necessary and proper" Laws specifically to carry "into Execution the foregoing Powers" — referring to the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. In other words, mandating that a person must buy health insurance needs to be justified, in the first place, by the few and defined powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. So the Necessary and Proper Clause can only be invoked as one of the enumerated powers is also invoked. That is why Judge Henry Hudson ruled as he did in the Virginia Lawsuit against Obama-Care.

 

Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the Obama-Care mandate “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.” (p. 24) "If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such a provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution." (p. 19)

 

General Welfare Clause

 

The Federal Government has tried to justify the ObamaCare mandate via the "General Welfare Clause," a clause that is embedded within Congressional Taxation Power. But to invoke the General Welfare Clause, the Government must first establish that the "penalty" for not buying Health Insurance — the very "penalty" spoken of in the 2070-page behemoth called ObamaCare — is really a tax, and not a penalty.

 

While the Federal Government does have taxation power via Article 1 Section 8, here's the problem:

 

In the effort to pass ObamaCare through Congress, President Obama and the authors of Obama-Care played politics with words; trying to distance themselves from the perception of higher "taxes," the President, the Obama-Care authors, and Democrat Senators and Congressmen all called the monetary assessment for failure to purchase health insurance a penalty — and not a tax!

 

This is precisely why Judge Henry Hudson pointed to the historical record of "pre-enactment representations," where both the "Executive and Legislative branches" consistently called the "penalty" for failure to purchase healthcare insurance, a "penalty" and not a "tax." Thus, Federal Judge ruled that the General Welfare Clause has no force.

 

NEVERTHELESS, even if the penalty were deemed a tax, there is still a huge Constitutional problem this virtually impossible to overcome: All federal taxes, save income taxes, must be assessed proportionally according to State populations — this is called a "Capitation" Tax.

 

 

 

A Little Known Fact about Federal Taxation:

All Federal Taxes must be Proportional to State Populations

 

Even if the penalty for failure to purchase health insurance were a tax, and not a penalty, here's another constitutional problem. All taxes laid by the Federal Government, save income taxes, must be proportional to the populations of each State.

 

Article I Section 9

 

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

 

Again, the only Constitutional exception to a "capitation" Tax, proportionally paid among the several States, is the federal income tax. Since income tax is NOT a "capitation" Tax, that is why Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:

 

16th Amendment

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Because the Obama-Care tax/penalty is NOT an income tax or a "capitation" tax, proportional to State populations, this means the Obama-Care tax/penalty is NOT Constitutional — and thus NOT legal.

 

 

 

Police Powers

 

Within a Constitutional context, the term "Police Powers" has a broader definition that goes beyond "law enforcement." The root of the word "police" is "polis" which means "city" or "state." The root "polis" is found in the word "metropolis." — metra = mother + polis = city, hence Metropolis is the Mother City.

 

Police Powers refer to powers held primarily by Cities and States; thus, Police Powers literally means polis powers, in other words, City or State Powers. The United States Constitution directly empowers the States to regulate the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of the citizenry. The exercise of police power takes the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through legal consequences and even through physical coercion — this is the common connotation of "police" as "law enforcement."

 

Again, Police Powers are broader than the common understand associated with the word "police." Because the federal government has limited powers granted by the Constitution, it does not have a general police power directly over the U.S. citizenry, as the states do. Clearly, certain enumerated powers stipulated in Article 1, Section 8 empower federal government to act on matters of foreign relations and border security.

 

United States Constitution: Article 1 Section 8

 

Historically, it was the States that created the Federal Government and granted specific powers through the Constitution. Congress may exercise only the eighteen 18 enumerated powers explicitly outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, as follows:

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

 

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

All other powers to regulate the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of the citizenry are held by the States, as specifically granted in the Tenth 10th Amendment. Given that the States created the Federal Government, and then gave it power to regulate Interstate Commerce, we understand that decisions to originate Commerce in the first place, resides with the States.

 

Dr Matt's Intriguing Insight: ObamaCare is both attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (forcing everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created, as provided by the commerce clause."

 

If the power to require citizens to purchase goods or services is NOT enumerated among the 18 clauses of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, then the Federal Government does NOT have that power.

 

 

 

The Necessary and Proper Clause

 

Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18 is known as The Necessary and Proper Clause, and is stated thus:

 

The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

During discussions of the proposed constitution, this clause provoked controversy: Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power; in contrast, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution — Alexander Hamilton defended this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers.

 

Arguing in Federalist No. 44, James Madison concurred with Hamilton, stating that without this clause the constitution would be a "dead letter." At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace civil liberties (e.g., liberty from federal powers that force citizens to purchase particular goods or services).

 

The General Welfare Clause

 

In the United States Constitution, the "General Welfare" provision is found in the Taxing and Spending Clause as follows:

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

Through clarifications by Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall, the mention of "general welfare" within the Taxing and Spending Clause was never intended to give unlimited power to the federal government.

 

Here's how Thomas Jefferson explained the general welfare clause: “the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum [according to pleasure] for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.

 

Jefferson's statement suggests that the "general welfare" of the people would be an aim reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment. And because the 10th Amendment reserves all rights and powers to the States, that are not enumerated to the Federal Government, thus, it is the States that would address concerns of matters of welfare of the people — whether general or specific.

 

According to Jefferson, the welfare of the Union, as opposed to the more specific welfare of the people [living within the Union], is the purpose for federal taxation and spending. The "Union" being the collective coalition of 50 states.

 

In a 1824 ruling of Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall described in an "obiter dictum" [said in passing] the following limit to the General Welfare Clause: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. . . . Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." In other words, "general welfare" must be defined within the enumerated powers of the federal government.

 

Two authors of the The Federalist papers offered interpretations of the general welfare clause:

 

James Madison maintained that spending must be tied to one of the specifically enumerated federal powers — such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military. Madison argued that the General Welfare Clause is not a direct grant of power, but a statement of purpose that qualifies the taxation power.

 

• Alexander Hamilton offered his interpretation of "general welfare" after the Constitution had been ratified. He argued that federal spending, as an enumerated power, could be done independently to benefit the general welfare — such as to assist national agricultural or educational needs. However such federal spending should be general in nature and would not favor a specific section of the country.

 

The 9th Ninth Amendment

 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed

to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

In other words, the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust all basic and fundamental rights. The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. It was James Madison who introduces these amendments, thus it is significant to note Madison's words:

 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

 

The 10th Tenth Amendment

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Based upon how Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens ruled in United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison, and Gonzales v. Raich, they interpret the Interstate Commerce Clause to have few limits, if any. These four Justices have ruled in favor of Federal Government regulation 3 out of 3 times — even when the issues were NOT directly about commerce, nor about interstate dealings.

 

Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens will likely rule that requiring citizens to buy Health Insurance, is something that the Federal Government can do under the Interstate Commerce Clause — again, here Clause #3 from Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution:

 

The Congress shall have power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,

and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

 

Justices Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor have not made rulings on the Commerce Clause yet. If reputations for being conservative or liberal mean anything, then Roberts and Alito may support Commerce Clause Limits, and Sotomayor would broadly interpret the Commerce Clause as granting powers for the Fed to regulate. The term "broadly interpret" usually means ignoring the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

 

As for Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, . . . Thomas has come down on the side of Limits to the Commerce Clause three 3 out of 3 times, with Scalia and Kennedy ruling 2 twice for Commerce Clause limitations and once for federal government regulation.

 

Scalia and Kennedy will likely cast the swing votes on the matter. When the Supreme Court Justices eventually rule on the Virginia Law Suit, they will do so based upon the following precedent cases that involve the Interstate Commerce Clause:

 

Supreme Court Cases relating to the Commerce Clause

 

1942 - Wickard v. Filburn

 

In order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, the U.S. government imposed federal limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer. Filburn was growing more than the federal limits, and was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine -- even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

 

Ruling: In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the "Agricultural Adjustment Act." The intended rationale of this federal law was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The court ruled that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

 

Majority: Jackson, joined by Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Byrnes

 

 

1995 - United States v. Lopez

 

Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. In 1992 he carried a concealed weapon into the school. Confronted by school authorities, Lopez admitted to having the weapon and was charged with violation of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

 

Ruling: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals: While Congress has broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power is limited, and does not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns — especially when there is no evidence that carrying them affects the economy substantially.

 

This was the first Supreme Court case since Wickard v. Filburn to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist identified three broad categories of activity that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause:

 

* channels of interstate commerce,

* instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and

* activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

 

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.

 

Majority: Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas

Concurrence: Kennedy, joined by O'Connor

Concurrence: Thomas

 

Dissent: Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

Dissent: Stevens

Dissent: Souter

 

 

2000 - United States v. Morrison

 

In 1994, the United States Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act. That fall a Virginia Tech freshman, Christy Brzonkala, was allegedly assaulted by Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, members of the school's football team. A state grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to charge either man with a crime. Brzonkala then filed suit under the Violence Against Women Act.

 

Ruling: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, to pass the "Violence Against Women Act." Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist held that "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision."

 

Majority: Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas

Concurrence: Thomas

 

Dissent: Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissent: Breyer, joined by Stevens; joined by Souter and Ginsburg (Points 1 and 2 only)

 

 

2005 - Gonzales v. Raich

 

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. California was one of eight states that allowed medicinal use of marijuana. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown marijuana to relieve pain; her use was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law -- the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

 

Ruling: The decision was 6-3 in favor of the Federal Government's ability to regulate: Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, to prevent or limit access to marijuana for other uses.

 

Majority: Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

Concurrence: Scalia

 

Dissent: O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas (Points 1 and 2 only)

Dissent: Thomas

 

Scalia's Concurring Opinion:

 

“As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. . . . This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”

 

Again, Scalia voted in favor of Commerce Clause limitations in Lopez and in Morrison.

 

O'Connor's Dissenting Opinion:

 

"Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently."

 

"If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."

 

Justice Rehnquist joined O'Connor's decent. Her use of the word "experiment," referred to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

 

"Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."

 

Thomas's Dissenting Opinion:

 

"Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not 'Commerce ... among the several States.' . . . Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that 'commerce' included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value."

 

"If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits."

 

"Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

 

"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'"

 

 

 

Dr Matt's Bottom Line:

Why Obama-Care will be Ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

 

In the Gonzales v. Raich, what tipped the Supreme Court decision in favor of federal regulation? It was the principle of "undercutting" a broader scheme of Interstate order. In his concurring opinion, Scalia wrote:

 

Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. . . . This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”

 

If the Supreme Court had allowed individuals to grow marijuana at home for "personal medicinal purposes," this would have opened Pandora's Box: thus Interstate sales and use of marijuana would have become a nuisance for other States where marijuana growing and using is illegal — state anti-marijuana laws would have been "undercut."

 

One of the key differences between the State of Virginia's Lawsuit compared to Gonzales v. Raich, is that Marijuana use is illegal in most States and exercising one's liberty NOT to purchase Health Insurance is NOT illegal in all States — that is, until ObamaCare introduced its coercive Mandate. This means the threat of "undercutting" a broader network of State Laws is NOT a factor in the Virginia Law Suit. Expressing one's liberty to NOT purchase a good or service has never been illegal; in contrast, growing and using marijuana is illegal — that's a key difference in the two court case, thus the undercutting principle should not apply in the Virginia Lawsuit.

 

This means the freedom for individual citizens to NOT engage in commerce (to choose NOT to buy Health Insurance or any other good or service) is NOT regulate-able by the Federal Government via the Interstate Commerce Clause, because that choice is NOT an act of commerce and further does not involve Interstate coordination or Interstate "undercutting" — which was the tipping point for Gonzales v. Raich, according to Scalia.

 

Clearly a citizens choice to "do nothing" need not be coordinated and regulated between the several States by the Federal Government; therefore, the Health Care Freedom Act passed by the State of Virginia should be ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court; and the universal mandate forcing citizens to buy health insurance, and levying a monetary penalty if they don't, should be found Unconstitutional.

 

The power for Governments to regulate an individual's decision to "do nothing" (to NOT buy a good or a service) is unquestionably reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution — that is IF, as the Declaration of Independence says "by the consent of the governed," a majority of citizens want such a regulation. The people of the State of Virginia have decided they want liberty from being compelled to buy health insurance! In contrast, if the majority of Massachusetts citizens want to be insured, they have the liberty to elect representative government to establish it — and thus enjoy the freedom to be insured. That's Federalism.

 

The best Health Care Reform at the federal level will be Compassionate, Constitutional, and will NOT kill the Economy by driving up the National Debt. But operating from limited powers, the best federal government can do is to remove interstate restrictions and open up free market competitive among the States.

 

Ultimately Healthcare Reform must happen at the State level, because States have numerous and indefinite powers that federal government does not have. Because ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government, making it more of a Central Government that overreaches and diminishes the numerous and indefinite powers of the States, the Supreme Court should rule 5-4 that Obama-Care is unconstitutional.

 

Sincerely,

Dr Matt

 

WEll…The court ruled 5-4 it stands as a tax…and Roberts added as a final thought it's not the courts job to protect us from the politicians we elect.

[cristinew]

To make it easy on us

 

So what does the court's ruling mean for regular Americans?

After the ACA's passage in 2010, Mother Jones' Nick Baumann listed 10 ways Obama's signature health care law will impact the healthy and sick, young and old, rich and poor. Here they are:

1) Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance. Never again will you face the risk of getting really sick and then, a few months in, having your insurer tell you, "Sorry, you've 'run out' of coverage." Almost everyone I've met knows someone who had insurance but got really, really sick (or had a kid get really sick) and ran into a lifetime cap.

2) If you don't know someone who has run into a lifetime cap, you probably know someone who has run into an annual cap. The use of these will be sharply limited. (They'll be eliminated entirely in 2014.)

3) Insurers can no longer tell kids with preexisting conditions that they'll insure them "except for" the preexisting condition. That's called preexisting condition exclusion, and it's out the window.

4) A special, temporary program will help adults with preexisting conditions get coverage. It expires in 2014, when the health insurance exchanges—basically big "pools" of businesses and individuals—come on-line. That's when all insurers will have to cover everyone, preexisting condition or not.

5) Insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick, either—this plan means the end of "rescissions."

6) You can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26.

7) Seniors get $250 towards closing the "doughnut hole" in their prescription drug coverage. Currently, prescription drug coverage ends once you've spent $2,700 on drugs and it doesn't kick in again until you've spent nearly $6,200. James Ridgeway wrote about the problems [12] with the doughnut hole for Mother Jones in the September/October 2008 issue. Eventually, the health care reform bill will close the donut hole entirely. The AARP has more on immediate health care benefits [13] for seniors. Next year (i.e., in nine months), 50 percent of the doughnut hole will be covered.

8) Medicare's preventive benefits now come with a free visit with your primary care doctor every year to plan out your prevention services. And there are no more co-pays for preventative services in Medicare.

9) This is a big one: Small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.

10) Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.

UPDATE: Here's one more big benefit we've found out about since the ACA passed:

11) Free birth control [14] and other preventative services for women, unless you work for a faith-based organization that opposes birth control [15].

Hungry for more? Read Adam Serwer's breakdown of what the Supreme Court's decision means and what comes next [1].

[AKenewell]

At over 2000 pages I doubt anyone posting on this forum has read and understood the whole law.

 

 

 

Well then they are advocating for something they don't even understand? How do they know what's fact or opinion?

[cristinew]

Dr Matt's Bottom Line:

Why Obama-Care will be Ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

 

guess he got that one wrong

[Restorium2]

Sorry I disagree..admins have opinions and conversations to..and nowhere here have I been insulting. Also not all MM patients are for Obamacare..and I bet I know more of them than you do..so just let me repeat MM was voted in by 63%..that vote was bipartisan. If all of the patients opposing this were posting here…this thread would be much longer!

 

 

 

Excuse me? What are you talking about? What an ignorant statement…like almost all other's you make! MM was voted in by 63%..that was a bipartisan vote..I am not for obama..and that has NOTHING to do with how I feel about MM…do you think all MM patients are for obama?

[AKenewell]

Dr Matt's Bottom Line:

Why Obama-Care will be Ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

 

guess he got that one wrong

 

Yeah..he did..but if you read the decision what Roberts did was put the power back in the hands of the people.

[AKenewell]

 

Resto..should I copy and paste all your over the top insinuations to me and other's in this thread for which I have received many complaints..any further issues with staff..address via pm as per the acceptable use policy. Admins and mods do have opinions..and if you disagree do so on facts and merit...

[Restorium2]

If you are going to post these long cut and pasties you need to put a live link into where you got it. Otherwise it is palgiarism, like you wrote it yourself.

[AKenewell]

Petyr..any issues with site staff must be addressed via pm, read the acceptable use policy and keep your posts on topic..and not personal.

[AKenewell]

If you are going to post these long cut and pasties you need to put a live link into where you got it. Otherwise it is palgiarism, like you wrote it yourself.

 

Any facts that contradict your opinion must be incorrect..how about this, read obamacare in its entirety all 2,407 pages..and then read the constitution..and the Declaration of Independence... then we can have a fair and factual debate…..

[GanjaWarrior]

I know of two people who have died from heart attacks that could of been prevented but they had no insurance ,,and they were in there ;late 40s.. now the family suffers with the loss

 

get out your googgle.... look up countries with socialized medicine look n see the numbers of people that have died in those countries.... now you see the number of loss that happened with socialized health care...we should repeal it no? using emotions when trying to talk rational never really works.

[Restorium2]

Resto..should I copy and paste all your over the top insinuations to me and other's in this thread for which I have received many complaints..any further issues with staff..address via pm as per the acceptable use policy. Admins and mods do have opinions..and if you disagree do so on facts and merit...

I wish you would. You certainly point out my faulty posts without any quotes.

 

I really don't think you should be cutting CRISTINE down like that. That was really a hurtful thing to post. It pains me to even read it. And you keep saying things like that.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Restorium2

[cristinew]

Roberts is a totalitarian just like the rest of the bums on the SC they always side with the government

 

that waa my answer to some people here in our town before the decision

Edited July 8, 2012 by cristinew

[GanjaWarrior]

republicans seem to never speak up about mittcare

....it sucks...its a horrible idea...it failed cost huge piles of money...and its the best thing obammer could come up wioth....um mitts a bunny muffin and obammers just a turd....but they both stink like bunny muffin and wont do a bit of good for out country....only corp...see healthcare obammer just made em billions...good to have friends in high places.

[GanjaWarrior]

At over 2000 pages I doubt anyone posting on this forum has read and understood the whole law.

 

 

im positive that none of the politicians that just fd up my children's future for the sake of giving someone else sub par health care ever read past page 3.

[AKenewell]

I wish you would. You certainly point out my faulty posts without any quotes.

 

I really don't think you should be cutting CRISTINE down like that. That was realy a hurtful thing to post.

 

I really think you are more than over the top in your posts..you have went as far as threatening members who don't agree with business. Shall I go back and copy and paste??I've received several complaints... All this and it seems you have not even read the bill?

[cristinew]

I am over it,

[AKenewell]

im positive that none of the politicians that just fd up my children's future for the sake of giving someone else sub par health care ever read past page 3.

 

Actually, It was not read before being passed..Nancy Pelosi Said..you have to pass it to find out what's in it. I think anyone voting for it should read it…is it not our responsibility to be informed?

[Restorium2]

Actually, It was not read before being passed..Nancy Pelosi Said..you have to pass it to find out what's in it. I think anyone voting for it should read it…is it not our responsibility to be informed?

That is total pucky. You are twisting to the point of insinuating something that's totally not true.

 

I'm not going to sit here and leave it at that because it would then be just and insult and hurtful.

 

So I will outline HOW you are wrong with facts.

 

Nancy read it. She not only read it, she assigned dozens of her staff members to take a section and spend a lot of time totally researching it.

 

What Nancy meant, that you didn't understand, is that there will be some answers, about what will happen as an outcome of the changes, that will have to been seen in the future to quantify.

 

You made it sound like Nancy didn't even read it, and that was mean spirited, if you were not just ill informed. Take your pick.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Restorium2

[AKenewell]

That is total pucky. You are twisting to the point of insinuating something that's totally not true.

 

I'm not going to sit here and leave it at that because it would then be just and insult and hurtful.

 

So I will outline HOW you are wrong with facts.

 

Nancy read it. She not only read it, she assigned dozens of her staff members to take a section and spend a lot of time totally researching it.

 

What Nancy meant, that you didn't understand, is that there will be some answers, about what will happen as an outcome of the changes, that will have to been seen in the future to quantify.

 

You made it sound like Nancy didn't even read it, and that was mean spirited, if you were not just ill informed. Take your pick.

 

I will check my facts, it's been a while since then but that's what I understood her to say.