You heard it here first and I’m going out on a limb, but I predict the U.S. Supreme Court will vote 6-3 (with a concurring opinion) holding that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare or “Commie Care,” is unconstitutional. However, the true reason for this holding will never be found in print, unless as Mark Twain said, “Only dead men tell the truth.”
Some of our founding fathers were more concerned about the judicial branch of government destroying federalism than the executive or legislative branches. Jefferson was particularly concerned about this silent creeping power. He said, “ ... the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body ... like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, and the government consolidated into one.”
Fortunately, Madison’s checks and balances may finally come into play. As he stated, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida (Case no. 11-398) will prove if Madison’s plan was successful for it will be in the self-interest and for the survival of the Supreme Court in this case to be obliged “to control itself,” i.e., the government. If the Court rules Obamacare constitutional, the Court will be its own hangman. After rendering such an opinion, the Court will have disemboweled itself of any true future federal authority. Henceforth, any powers the executive or legislative branches want to exercise they can, unencumbered under the guise of the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause without fear of control by the Court. The Court will have to draw up the strings on the wide net it previously cast under these two provisions if it is to continue as a viable institution.
Therefore it will be necessary for the survival of the Court as a political power in the system of checks and balances to hold Obama’s Commie Care law unconstitutional. Of course, the opinion and any concurring opinions will and can never state this in their holdings. The Court majority will come up with an esoteric (possibly even logical) opinion for holding it unconstitutional by using a vague standard that will never be able to be seen as a black and white ruling. Vagueness and avoidance of a clear cut standard are mother’s milk of judicial authority and the basis of future appeals thereby self-generating the power wielded by the required exercise of court authority. As a matter of survival, and in Madison’s unstated name of the obligation “to control itself,” I predict the Court will hold the law unconstitutional by a 6-3 decision. The three justices that have already developed a reputation favoring the socialist new world order over our Constitution will hold fast in their political beliefs. Worst case scenario for freedom is, if held constitutional; we the people will no longer have any meaningful judiciary to protect our constitutional civil rights.
Bill Sandry
Mesa
manny99 posted at 6:54 pm on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
i think they will pass it, the elephant in thier chambers will be the race issue.
mostly african americans and latinos have no insurance.
they [ judges ] will be told by the obama adm, that if they dont allow it it will bring about racial disharmonies [ riots ].
this is what obama meant when he "dared" the republicans to do away with the bill.
personaly i hope the the obama adm, wins a second term. this will bring the tax paying workforce to dwindle down to about 40%.
as it stands now... 50 percent of americans pay taxes, 50% do not pay taxes.
when that reaches 47% or 45 percent paying taxes and and the rest dont, the first thing to go away will be the social service programs.[ no more food stamps or housing or cash assists. ] it will be then that the something for nothing crowd will not understand and realy go off the hook.
Rich posted at 10:22 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
Dale,
Don't know why the term 'Commie' should turn you off, a tad crude he could have said 'Communist.' but really the legislation is typical of the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," popularized by Karl Marx, and used repeatedly. Though the original quote was Louis Blanc, a French socialist. To call legislation based in a slogan repeatedly used by the man who defined modern Communism, 'Commie' is as descriptive as it is derogatory.
Accuracy posted at 12:56 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
As having the final word on issues – the U.S. Supreme Court has often ruled legislation approved by Congress, and signed by presidents, to be “unconstitutional”.
But, President Obama warned the Supreme Court today not to hold his administration's health care “unconstitutional”, by warning the high court that striking down his "ObamaCare" law would be judicial activism.
Saying he can't imagine that an "unelected group of people" would "not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
VofReason posted at 12:48 pm on Tue, Apr 3, 2012.
I am sure we will find some of these high minded critics who cannot give credense to a logical arguement went it indicates a political leaning over on Jon Beydlers column. Surely they will be scolding him for his left wing (read crazy nutball) critique of just about anything with common sense of the day. Or maybe not. Yes looneys money grows on a tree in Federal garden. There is always more and no deficit should be looked at as a serious concern. Run along, irresponsible without any concern.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:57 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Yes, sock,
I know that Social Security is technically not bankrupt. But to prove my point with kj I decided to assume that it was and have him explain his rule, the rule with so many exceptions that rather than "proving the rule" they defeat the rule. Arguing over Social Security would obscure my point.
Trust and Accuracy,
Kagan has recused herself a number of time on a number of cases. But where she has had nothing to do with this legislation, recusal was not necessary. Sorry, but you are both wrong again, and again, and again, and again!
Accuracy posted at 1:14 pm on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Good point about Kagan..... During the U.S. Supreme Court debate against ObamaCare, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan sounded almost as if she had also participated in preparing the government's case . . . and with her prior health care reform-related work, she sounded as if she was before the high court to defend ObamaCare for the Liberals.
In_God_We_Trust posted at 11:12 am on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
The Kagan should recuse itself since it worked to enact this monstrosity under the Mao-bama administration. That would make the vote more like 5-3
sockratties posted at 5:50 am on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Social Security is not bankrupt although GOP spin tries to make it look that way while Obama is in office. The SS trust fund has almost $3 Trillion worth of IOUs in the form of non-negotiable notes because congress allows the money to be borrowed by the Fed. Congress would like to find a way to steal the notes because they figure into the federal debt; one reason some Republicans keep pushing to privatize Social Security. SS has always paid its own way although congress has managed to add non-paying recipients to the entitlements. Contrary to your opinion, Social Security is considered to be one of the few government programs that is working.
When Obama was being bad-mouthed for saying we would have to increase the debt ceiling to meet Social Security obligations, it was because congress had already spent the money and the Treasury would have to borrow to replace what was taken. If we can keep congress from getting their greedy hands on the fund, it will remain solvent for many more years.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:10 am on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Yes, kj,
Social security, medicare, [are] bankrupt and so was GM and half of Wall Street. So when you say "Anything not of a free market, capitalist nature, bankrolled by a federal bureauocracy of taxpayer dollars, is doomed from the start." I wonder how you explain that Wall Street is not "of a free market, capitalist nature?" Or are there some exceptions to your rule? Clearly you need another rule!
k33j88 posted at 12:11 am on Mon, Apr 2, 2012.
Let's hope that the change to obamacare doesn't come to fruition. The federal gov't has no rights forcing citizens to maintain a stake into any private/federal program. Social security, medicare, is bankrupt. Anything not of a free market, capitalist nature, bankrolled by a federal bureauocracy of taxpayer dollars, is doomed from the start. Another example of big gov't gone wild.
abimopectore posted at 9:57 pm on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
All this talk about partisan posturing on behalf of the Supreme Court with respect to a its final decision regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is truly unfortunate. I really hope the Supreme Court votes on the merits of the arguments and the constitutionality of the different parts of the act itself looking solely at the law and what's best for this country, something our Congress and the Executive branches have been severely lacking in their dispositions (i.e., and I mean it with respect to their inability to sit down and truly compromise on solving the problems facing this country without allowing their left and right patriots push those willing to truly solve problems into corners that don't allow any meaningful action to occur). I know folks say this President hasn't had any help on behalf of the conservative Republicans, but what good is this President for the country if the Republicans aren't willing to work with him. If he can't get both Republicans and Democrats work with him, it's about time he head into retirement since it's pretty clear he is UNABLE to lead and let someone else try to do what he's obviously been incapable of doing, which is to work with EVERYONE.
As for his signature achievement, for those whose memories have already forgotten, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and ALL Republicans voting against. It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and ALL 178 Republicans voting against the bill. This should tell you that President Obama has never worked with anybody except Democrats. It wouldn't surprise me if this law was overturned since it was never written in an effort by BOTH sides and folks shouldn't expect it to survive if Congress and the President don't write a law that has input and support from BOTH sides. If you run the government in a partisan fashion to pass your signature legislative victory don't be surprised if it comes back to bite you for not having had the courage to work to obtain a bill that would have allowed both sides to have some skin in the game. If you can't lead both sides, you need to step down and let someone lead. And this is what we'll get if President Obama gets re-elected, a dysfunctional government that can't get out of the gridlock we're currently in.
Accuracy posted at 5:57 pm on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
The title “Here comes the 6-3 vote on Obamacare” is a good forecast.
But it will be more like a 5-4 vote revealed in June. Why 5-4?
The four liberal Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan will rule to defend ObamaCare. It sounded as though their votes were predetermined – as they parroted the left.
While the 5 conservative Justices – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas will stand together and rule that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.
Dale Whiting posted at 12:25 pm on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
Bill,
Have me met before? I too believe that the court will rule against this healthcare act. But for reasons largely unrelated to your. And I was eating up your arguments until I reached the following statement. "Therefore it will be necessary for the survival of the Court as a political power in the system of checks and balances to hold Obama’s Commie Care law unconstitutional." I hereby declare that you have violated our "Shepherd's Law." You failed to properly define why you view this piece of legislation to be communism. [Should you not understand Shepherd Law, go back to his piece of March 27th and read it and the comments. It's entitled "Defining something not so simple" and suggests we all need to be more well defined in our criticism.]
Now, I don't favor Socialism. But just for kicks, please point out to me in the Constitution where Socialism is defined and/or made unconstitutional. And where you view this act as socialism, but are not inclined to explain why, just how would ruling it unconstitutional on the grounds you site be constitutional?
You made a very nice start on your piece. But then you completely fuzzed out! [sad]
In_God_We_Trust posted at 11:55 am on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
I predict that if they don't rule against this monstrosity, this country as we know it is doomed and many people will suffer as a result of it. This will no doubt please the socialists that seek fundamental change, Mao-bama.
Rich posted at 11:37 am on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
I wouldn't predict that, but your reasoning is correct. Why? Because we have a Federal Department of Education when it is a secondary power and reserved to the states and the people. What was envisioned by Jefferson has already occurred, and Madison's checks and balances bypassed. In other words, 'that ship has sailed.' The Federal government has spent so long robbing Peter to pay Paul that the support of Paul pretty much allows them to bypass the limits built into the structure. Maybe the Court will swim against the tide, but I rather doubt it.
sockratties posted at 11:34 am on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.
Unfortunately Bill Sandry is probably correct in his prediction. The letter would have been a good analysis of the courts position and reasoning if the author could have restrained from betraying his true agenda of bashing those who fashioned and support Medicare modification rather than the act itself.
By labeling the bill as Commie Care and the justices that will most likely vote to strike it down as favoring “the socialist new world order” he has shown that he is another shrill voice screaming from the extremes. Sorry, Bill. While I would have liked to have read your letter as a shrewd, well written analysis of a difficult and important Supreme Court decision, you partisan bias forces me to toss it into the same bin to which I relegate other trash mail.