waiting [for Supreme Court decision on health care law]

As time trickles out with the Supreme court staggering to a healthcare decision I wish to remind the GOP that this is a lose/lose situation.

Many of the provisions of obamacare are already in place and are hugely popular. The GOP leadership is already running about trying to find ways to salvage these.

Today I heard two of my state (GOP) senators proclaiming that we ought to adapt Romney care for our state. Odd since just last week they were denouncing it as an abomination, forgetting that it was a GOP inspired plan as far back as the nineties.

Whatever the court decides the GOP loses. If the entire bill is struck down that will give absolute ownership of this broken down system to them. They alone will be required to find a way out. That will be interesting since there is no escape short of national health care.

If the bulk of the program remains intact they must then explain why they made such a fuss about a constitutional bill. (not the the ussc gives a damn what is or is not really constitutional)

Meanwhile he idiot GOP base grows restless.

Well, there’s a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare in terms of constitutionality, in that states clearly have the authority to enact such programs and the feds might not.

However, opposition to Obamacare is never couched solely in those terms, so from a political perspective it’s definitely two-faced to support the former and not the latter.

Article 1 section eight of the constitution the first sentence states that the congress is granted the power to “provide for the general welfare”. Not “promote” provide. The last sentence gives them power to enact all legislation “necessary” to carry out all the previous provisions.

Conservatives always overlook this just as they try (and have succeeded) in tearing apart the one sentence 2nd amendment to separate a “well regulated militia” from the statement allowing citizens to own guns.

Conservatives are good at this as are all who would read into the constitution that which they favor.

Both parties completely overlook that nowhere in the constitution does the Supreme court have the power to strike down laws. NOWHERE!

Nowhere in the constitution does it say corporations are people. In the primary decision where whis is supposed to have taken place it is nowhere to be found except in a headnote that was not written by the justices. Headnotes have never been considered a binding part of a decision.

Conservatives are noisy about freedom and oppression but it is rarely a case as to what the oppression is but rather about who is allowed to oppress…the state or the fed.

Look closely and you will find it more about taxes than oppression.

I’ve expanded the thread title. onecut39, please use more descriptive titles in the future. We want people to have some idea what the thread topic is before they click.

Hardly. Just wishful thinking on your part.

  1. If the mandate is slapped down, the American people are saved from the government being able to extract money from the pockets of the populace is a way that the Constitution does not allow. Win for all Americans. Win for Republicans.

  2. having done so, Obama, the supposed Constitutional law professor will be shown to be full of shit on that very subject. Win for all Americans. Win for Republicans.

  3. If both the mandate and the law are struck dow, we won’t have to try to figure out how to pay for Obamacare without the mandate, which the President called the lynchpin of his whole plan. We can then go back and find a way to fix healthcare the IS Constitutional that won’t result in the current mandate simply being reinstituted as a tax (which would be Constitutional if it passes the way. (Unlike his sidestepping of congress in his latest immigration light fiasco.) Win for all American. Win for Republicans.

Well, not ALL Americans. The ones who’re dying/being bankrupted by medical bills don’t win. Neither do the 18-24 (is that the right age range?) young people with preexisting conditions from birth (and thus born uninsurable) who’re currently being covered by their parents’ insurance. Or the ones with preexisting/recission-able conditions period.

No matter what you think of Obama’s reforms, or what you think should happen to those people, would you like to argue with the assertion that they’re losing out more than they’re winning?

(As an aside, if any portions are struck down, maybe I should start another thread about what conservatives assert are the disadvantages to the systems in Canada and Europe so often touted by liberals. I’ve never gotten a sense of why it’s thought they’re worse off than we are wrt health care. Do conservatives just not believe the numbers and testimonials, or is there a different angle they take?)

Ahhh. Not so! Scalia solved it…

"Don’t obligate yourself to that."(emergency room care/giving a shit about other people)

I’d like to think I’m being facetious, but he gave no indication he wasn’t deadly serious. And in today’s America, it strikes me as a possible end result.

Is there anything at all that Congress couldn’t do under this version of the general welfare clause? Can you name a single program they couldn’t enact?

You’re new here, but we’ve covered this topic a million times before. You’re not making any new arguments. Anyway, I said the feds might not be able to do it, not that they couldn’t. The fact that some federal judges- admittedly, a minority- have overturned the individual mandate means that reasonable minds can differ on the subject.

This post is equally silly. The individual mandate has been upheld as within the power of Congress by a plurality of federal courts. Even law professors aren’t psychic.

Not only is it a Constitutionally-mandated duty of Congress, but it was implemented using one of the powers explicitly granted to Congress in the Constitution. Congress has the power to levy taxes, and so they did. To argue that “it works exactly the same way a tax would, but it’s unconstitutional because they didn’t actually say the word tax” is the same sort of magic-word thinking that leads crackpots to talk about the fringe on flags.

I am simply quoting the constitution, as written by the founders. If you find the language too vague or too all inclusive or anything else you disagree with you may change that wording by the process set forth by the founders.


The SCOTUS is presently deciding if A) it has jurisdiction to decide this case and B) IF the bill that CONGRESS wrote is actually “Constitutional”.

IF the bill, as written and passed by CONGRESS, is unconstitutional. The court will have to decide if the entire bill or just portions of the bill are unconstitutional.

Depending on the outcome, CONGRESS can then readdress the issues raised and maybe one of the lawyers that infest Congress can write a bill that actually passes constitutional muster. If not, the SCOTUS can strike down that law, if and when, they are presented with the opportunity.

Just because CONGRESS passes a bill does not make that bill/law Constitutionally legal. That’s just the way the system works.

“Today’s episode of Constitution Street was brought to you by the letter F and P, and the number 14…”

It’s been previously decided that the Federal government doesn’t have unlimited power to do anything it wants. The SC Justices asked the lawyers to address that issue at the hearing. The pro-Obamacare side failed to make a convincing argument for an imperial government (but that’s only my opinion).

If the law is struck down the GOP will have exactly what they have advocated, a broken expensive, exclusive system that benefits no one.

I am anxious to see how they defend this position.

The irony is that obamacare was amended repeatedly, (at GOP request) to conform with previous GOP positions on healthcare but it became more important to block Obama than to reform healthcare.

We will now get on with the REPUBLICAN plan.

It won’t be pretty.

“Win for all Americans” and “Win for Republicans” are mutually exclusive terms.

I think there’s a better than even chance it gets overturned but I wouldn’t put a nickel on it. If it goes down, then the Republicans can’t campaign against it. Good for Democrats. If it goes down, then it will be discussed at length in the debates. Good for Democrats. If it was truly such a drag on the economy, then hiring will pick up from July-October. Good for Democrats. So go ahead and dance in the endzone if it goes down. The last dance will be ours, not yours.

All things being equal, there is never going to be a better-than-even chance that a congressional enactment is overturned. The presumption is always in favor of constitutionality.

I don’t have any faith that this Court will decide on its merits. There are four automatic Republican votes for virtually every case.

I see strong parallels between the ACA and how social security was implemented. Both faced immediate court action. Both were concerned with whether Congress exceeding its authority which is limited under the Tenth Amendment.

Eventually Social Security was implemented using the taxing power and the providing for the general welfare authority. At least that was the argument made to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed (some would argue under threat of court packing by FDR) that this was within the scope of Congressional authority.

But it was sold to the people as an old age insurance. The talk was of establishing a “old age reserve account.”

Of course the government collects the taxes that form the funding of the Social Security system. There is no option for placing those funds in the hands of a private sector company.

Using this logic a court could decide that a Single Payer system fully run by the government would be entirely legal but that Congress overstepped its authority by implementing the ACA because insurance premiums flow to private companies.

Right. Excellent post.