Supreme Court Ready to Violate the Constitution Again With Obamacare Ruling

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.

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?