Supreme Court Ready to Violate the Constitution Again With Obamacare Ruling

Advertisements

Everyone is waiting with bated breath on SCOTUS’ decision on the Affordable Health Care AKA Obama care. AHC was the brainchild, for a lack of a better term, of the conservative lobbying group the Heritage Foundation. AHC was the result of preventing a European-type single payer health care in the 80s. According to the Heritage Foundation:

Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.

Advertisements

in 1993, this bill was endorsed by 20 Republicans and was introduced by House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole who was senate majority leader. In 2003, Senator Ron Wyden introduced the Healthy Americans Act, an individual mandate, approved by 80 fellow senators on both the Democratic and Republican members. Today? Republicans are screaming the individual mandate is unconstitutional…huh? Yet let say it is. Lets say that the SCOTUS says that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and the Obama administration refuses to remove it. What then, contempt of court?

Are you kidding me?

Here’s why: Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States:

Article III Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

This law, written to dictate the role of the SCOTUS does not mention the SCOTUS to overturn any law legally voted and approved by Congress and signed to law by the POTUS. Some may say that Marbury vs. Madison was the law that allowed the SCOTUS to do so. But in order to do so, there has to be a Constitution Convention updating the Constitution and Congress 2/3, Senate 2/3 and the people 2/3 must vote to make changes and give power to the nine jurists.

So in other words, every law approved by the SCOTUS:

Citizens United vs FEC
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
Buckley v. Valeo

Are illegal.

Also, if one day, the Congress said that bank robbery is legal, it has the approval of both the House and Senate and signed to law by the President, then the only manner in which the law could be struck down is by the Congress overturning the law or veto power from the President. No judge has that power to do so.

Even under Obamacare, the SCOTUS cannot compel the president to eliminate or rewrite Obama care. Doing so would violate the Constitution. Funny thing, the so-called Constitution-loving teabaggers who are saying that Obamacare must be eliminated and by a group of politicians who listen to their command, are violating the Constitution themselves.

I wonder if any of the constitution-loving teabaggers would force their reps to overturn these laws, which are in violation of the Constitution?

8 Replies to “Supreme Court Ready to Violate the Constitution Again With Obamacare Ruling”

  1. You can bet Obama knows this and is preparing his laugh track. Suppose he determines just prior to the elections that Citizens United is illegal? And the entire ball of wax falls about like Frodo losing his finger at the end of the movie.

    Great stuff

  2. Or not. I suppose there’s always a chance enough of the justices are benefiting personally from the ACA that they’ll let it slide by. As for violating the Constitution, nothing’s stopped them from doing that before, just as a wide variety of Republican and Democratic (including the incumbent) presidents have done. In fact, the Constitution’s been violated so many times in my lifetime alone that the old girl must be walking bow-legged, if she’s still on her feet at all.

  3. There’s really no way to interpret the Constitution except to allow for judicial review. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if a case comes before SCOTUS that requires them to nullify a law because it contradicts the supreme law, then the justices are bound to nullify it. They can’t rewrite it – that’s the legislature’s job, but to enforce a law they believe to contradict the Constitution they are sworn to uphold would be a violation of their oaths. BTW, I support ACA and believe it to be constitutional. I also believe the burden of proof rests with the party challenging constitutionality, but I can certainly think of laws for which I am glad SCOTUS stepped in and nullified.

  4. Sorry, but if you didn’t know this was going to happen; you’re quite naive.
    We all have to face facts- the SCOTUS is nothing more than political hacks. Both right and left. I’d say about 7 of them probably make up their minds before they even hear testimony. They were chosen for their ability to stick to party doctrine; not constitutional knowledge. It’s way past time to stop fooling ourselves into believing those 9 cronies would ever have the best interests of the American People in mind. As I recall, aren’t We The People supposed to be Masters of our government?

  5. the SCOTUS does not care, will not care and frankly will never care, like congress, and everything else political its all controlled by cronies, political favor and money. If you think that the SCOTUS actually will do anything you think it should do is sadly mistaken.

  6. Unconstitutional? You might want to read up on Marbury v. Madison.

    By your logic, the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was illegal. Do you really want that?

  7. The author of this article is wrong. Although the Constitution does not give the SCOTUS the right to decide the constitutionality of legislative acts in writing (explicit authority), the fact that they would do so was always intended to be part of their job (inherent authority). A reading of Hamilton’s “Federalist #78”, paragraphs 8-11, proves this point. Marbury v. Madison didn’t GIVE the SCOTUS the right to judicial review, it was simply the first EXERCISE of it. The Constitution does not explicitly give the right to privacy, but as the Court rightly ruled, with such provisions as the right to be secure in one’s person and home, it is implied (implied authority). The author is also incorrect in his assertion that a Constitutional Convention is necessary to amend the Constitution. There are actually four ways spelled out in the Constitution which can be used to amend it. Of our 27 amendments, one way (2/3 vote of congress to propose and 3/4 vote of state legislatures to ratify) has been used 26 times. Only once, the 21st amendment, was the state convention method used (by the way, one of my favorite amendments). The only reason that I even mention this is my belief that we can only beat the right-wing establishment by being smarter than they are and being more truthful. We don’t need this type of emotional, half-truth misinformation to make our point. :-)

Comments are closed.