Thursday, June 28, 2012
Obama care constitutional!
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in Obamacare as a valid exercise of the Congress' Art. I taxing power.. It was expected that the case would be decided on the basis of the commerce clause. The court did not uphold it under the commerce clause. To call the individual mandate a "tax," is a huge stretch. Even Congress did not call it a "tax." None of the lower courts found that it was a tax. Surprisingly the 5th vote was cast the the usually conservative Chief Justice--John Roberts. Many were shocked that Roberts joined the liberals on the case. J. Kennedy, who is usually the swing vote and the most middle-of-the-road of all the Justices, voted against Obamacare. A big defeat for those who are concerned about the scope of federal power. Obama care will now move ahead unless there is Congressional action to block it. This will certainly be an issue in the crucial Nov. congressional elections. The battle moves from the Supreme Court to Congress. The Court has spoken, now the voters will speak in November. You think politics was hot and brutal now, this Court decision only throws more gasoline on the fire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Allow me to share my earlier e-mail comment to Professor Kessler.
ReplyDelete" ... What was Roberts thinking? He’s upholding Obamacare so long as it’s considered a tax? Even the socialist wannabes who forced this monstrosity on the country said it wasn’t a tax. Roberts opened the back door for the [progressive elites’] centralized socialistic state. Beneficent or not, all three branches of federal government have now entered into a tyrannical mess. Benjamin Franklin was credited with the following reply when asked what form of government now existed when leaving the constitutional convention, 'A republic, if you can keep it'. Much like in 1913, 1935 and 1965, our constitutional republic has failed again today. It’s insidiously being destroyed from within one piece at a time.".
From anti-federalist essay 12 by "Brutus".
ReplyDelete"... the judicial power of the United States ... would be authorized to explain the constitution, not only according to its letter, but according to its spirit and intention; and having this power, they would strongly incline to give it such a construction as to extend the powers of the general government, as much as possible, to the diminution, and finally to the destruction, of that of the respective states.".
The anti-federalist papers and the constitutional debates (Signet classic, 2003), ed. by R. Ketcham, 298.
To New York's Supreme Court Justice, the honorable Judge Yates, your worst fears have been verified once again by SCOTUS' latest abominable 2012 decision upholding congress' misnomered ACA, AKA "Obamacare".
44: Thanks for the historical perspective. Given the the Art III federal courts are all staffed by federal employees with essentially lifetime tenure, it is not surprising that the states ended up getting the short end of the stick. As federal power expands, the power of federal judges expands. "Power corrupts" and result in more power grabs. I'm not saying this is the only reason for the course of the law, but it certainly must be at least a factor.
ReplyDelete