Déjà vu all over again

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,099
245
Obama walked back his claim from yesterday.

MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence. If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.
And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.
Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there.

This really makes me wonder, exactly what did Obama lecture about in his class at the University of Chicago? It turns out that he "taught" due process and civil rights. That could explain why he doesn't understand Lochner, which wasn't even a commerce clause case.

My question is, if Obama thinks a decision that did not even involve the federal government is the last time the court overturned a commerce clause case involving economic issues, how does he explain Free Enterprise Fund v PCAOB or US v United Foods, Inc.? The latter is particularly telling vis a vis Obamacare since it was decided 7-2, and the court ruled that the government couldn't actually require mushroom growers to participate in a mandatory mushroom promotion program.

I wonder how long it will be before someone comes in and tells me I am getting what Obama said wrong, again.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZbtAFq7dP8]Bill Murray - Best scenes from the "Groundhog Day" - 4 - YouTube[/ame]
 
Considering Lochner is a Due Process clause cause, you'd think a Constitutional lawyer in the Due Process area would actually understand it.
 
We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right?

I like how he ignores the fundamental issue; no one is questioning the Federal Government's authority to regulate commerce but rather the Federal Government's authority to coerce commerce (shredding US contract law) that would otherwise not exist.
 
We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right?

I like how he ignores the fundamental issue; no one is questioning the Federal Government's authority to regulate commerce but rather the Federal Government's authority to coerce commerce (shredding US contract law) that would otherwise not exist.

Actually, I would argue against the Federal Governments ability to regulate commerce. The Constitution only allows them to regulate interstate commerce.

And They had a much stricter definition of what commerce was. Using their definition of commerce, it's debateable whether health insurance qualifies.
 
We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right?
I like how he ignores the fundamental issue; no one is questioning the Federal Government's authority to regulate commerce but rather the Federal Government's authority to coerce commerce (shredding US contract law) that would otherwise not exist.

Actually, I would argue against the Federal Governments ability to regulate commerce. The Constitution only allows them to regulate interstate commerce.

And They had a much stricter definition of what commerce was. Using their definition of commerce, it's debateable whether health insurance qualifies.

Personally, I believe the commerce clause was intended solely to prevent trade wars between the states.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top