Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,653
Reaction score
41,333
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
'President Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of respecting constitutional limitations on government, and the states suing the federal government over healthcare reform "have a pretty strong case" and are likely to prevail, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional.

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments," Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

That's called commandeering the legislature," he says. "That's the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That's prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.” '


Newsmax - Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,912
Points
48
Location
My Shack
I always eat the chocolate out of the neopolitan ice cream first.
 

Immanuel

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
2,265
Points
183
In order to not get my hopes up, I am going to keep telling myself that it is impossible. It won't happen. That way I won't be disappointed if it doesn't and I will be thrilled if it does and I don't have to worry about jinxing it.

Immie
 

Luissa

Annoying Customer
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
43,224
Reaction score
6,003
Points
1,785
Location
TARDIS
"Right-wing opponents of health care reform seem to have come to the unfounded conclusion that the new legislation violates not only their own policy preferences, but the United States Constitution as well. Indeed, Republican attorneys general across the country seem to have discovered a cottage industry in such litigation. I suggest they are not only grasping at straws, but also wasting taxpayer money that could be better spent on health care."



"One attacks individual mandates that require the uninsured to purchase insurance policies or pay a tax if they fail to do so.

It is not at all clear how the states or the attorneys general have standing to bring such a challenge since the provision has no impact on the states themselves. Moreover, the authority of Congress to adopt such legislation under the commerce clause of the Constitution seems unassailable. "


"The Supreme Court has even upheld the power of Congress under the commerce clause to forbid doctors from performing certain kinds of abortions, and has upheld legislation making it a federal crime for individuals to grow marijuana plants on their window sills for home medicinal use. "



"The opponents of the bill also complain that the federal government is imposing unjustified financial burdens on the states by requiring them to pay some portion of extra Medicaid costs.

The Supreme Court has long upheld programs under the Constitution’s spending clause requiring states that accept federal program funds to comply with federal requirements under those programs. In any event, states can simply opt out of Medicaid if they choose not to participate — but, of course, by so doing they would deprive their residents of the millions of federal dollars to cover their residents who would otherwise wind up being treated by local providers without compensation"

Frank Askin is distinguished professor of law and director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School/Newark.

Health care reform should survive legal challenges | NJ.com
 
Last edited:

Zander

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
22,519
Reaction score
9,091
Points
940
Location
Los Angeles CA
I think the challenges are going to be upheld and ObamaCare slapped down. Even if it isn't we'll gut it like a fish so that it is irrelevant. Either way, this POS will not stand.
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
56,428
Reaction score
19,008
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Unfunded mandates should have long ago been declared unconstitutional.

One problem we have is that the case law of all of this progressive crap actually provides a defense for the federal government.
 

slackjawed

Self deported
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
5,307
Reaction score
650
Points
153
Location
15th congressional district of Arizona
Judge Napolitano has repeatedly, in his writings and his comments, to be one who holds to a strict literal interpretation of the constitution. There are those that express that the constitution is a "living document', and should be 'updated' from time to time to fit the times.
This is not a new argument, it has been going on since the founding of the nation.
It has only been in fairly recent times (mid 1900's) that the Supreme court has made their decisions on precedent, rather than constitutionality.
This challenge to the health care bill will be interesting to watch. The fact is that there are constitutional scholars on both sides of this issue. The arguments presented by both sides, and how they are presented, appear to have more bearing on how a case is decided than the actual merits of the issue involved.

I make no predictions on how this case will be decided. I do think it inevitable that it will end up before the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to watch.
 

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
If this Supreme Court strikes down the present health care plan, they are going to have to ignore legal precedent.

Ok..so what? Legal Precedent gets struck down all the time when they realize that precedent is wrong.
 

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
To be fair to Obama I can't say Obama is the only elected official to abuse the constitution. We have just let that happen for to long and now most presidents do it to a certain degree. The patriot act probably was not the most constitutinal law and neither is the health care crap.
 

GWV5903

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
4,441
Reaction score
1,180
Points
245
Location
Austin, Texas
If this Supreme Court strikes down the present health care plan, they are going to have to ignore legal precedent.

What precedent are you referring to?

Health care reform should survive legal challenges | NJ.com

Read all about it.

(Thanks to Luissa :bowdown:)

George do you read the Constitution yourself?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.
 

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
If this Supreme Court strikes down the present health care plan, they are going to have to ignore legal precedent.

I didn't realize that it was precedent that gets upheld and the constitution gets changed. Thank you for clearing that up.
 

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
If this Supreme Court strikes down the present health care plan, they are going to have to ignore legal precedent.

I didn't realize that it was precedent that gets upheld and the constitution gets changed. Thank you for clearing that up.

It isn't that precedent necessarily mandates changing the Constitution. Change can occur on the basis of stare decisis, but only if the justices also consider reduction of effect.
 

Samson

Póg Mo Thóin
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
27,332
Reaction score
4,233
Points
245
Location
A Higher Plain
If this Supreme Court strikes down the present health care plan, they are going to have to ignore legal precedent.

I didn't realize that it was precedent that gets upheld and the constitution gets changed. Thank you for clearing that up.

It isn't that precedent necessarily mandates changing the Constitution. Change can occur on the basis of stare decisis, but only if the justices also consider reduction of effect.

Precisely, if we realise that it was the previous mandate that was upheld, then we must therefore change the constitutional requirement, and accept legal precedent against it, as well as any that may follow them.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top