Monday, November 14, 2011
Supreme Court to hear ObamaCare case
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases on the constitutional challenges to ObamaCare. Although what the Justices say during oral argument will probably give a better basis for predictions, based on prior cases, the Court's 4 conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Alito and C.J. Roberts) will vote against ObamaCare. The Court's 4 liberals (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomay and Kagan) will vote for it. Kennedy will be the swing vote. This will decision will be HUGE in what it says about the powers of the federal government. If ObamaCare is upheld, it will be only a short step to a federal government with no constitutional limits save the Bill of Rights. The doctrine of "enumerated powers" will be only a verbal shell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One favorite passage is Brutus'(believed to be Judge Robert Yates) objection to the proposed constitution's broad construction and taxing powers.
ReplyDeleteIn December of 1787 he wrote in essay VI;
" ... we must confine ourselves in our enquiries to the organization of the government and the guards and provisions it contains to prevent a misuse or abuse of power."
" ... that the powers given the legislature under the 8th section of the first article, had no other limitation than the discretion of the Congress."
"This I showed would totally destroy all the power of the state governments."
Let's hope the Supreme Justices on both sides of the aisle know their constitutional history and consider Brutus' warning. The majority, if not all, should then rule against Obamacare's unconstitutional and careless overreach into the individual states' domestic affairs.
Ref: The anti-federalist papers and the constitutional convention debates, Edited by R. Ketcham, Signet classic, May 2003.
PS: Enter the Tenth Amendment. If this alone doesn't show our founder's intent regarding federalism's dual sovereign design, then why bother with separation of powers and/or constitutional constrains? The three stooges (Obama, Reid and Pelosi) couldn't adhere more to the latter part of the question.
ReplyDelete44:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. Although later Supreme Courts disagreed, I, like you, believe that the 10th Amend. was intended to limit federal powers and leave some to the states. If that is not it's purpose, why put it in the Bill of Rights, all of which are limits on federal power.