REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Obamacare Predicted To Be Declared AWESOMELY AWESOME AND EPIC

POSTED BY: RIVERLOVE
UPDATED: Friday, April 2, 2010 14:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 863
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, April 2, 2010 7:55 AM

RIVERLOVE


Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare
Friday, 26 Mar 2010 06:32 PM
By: David A. Patten
NEWSMAX

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.”

Napolitano, author of “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” and a Fox News senior judicial analyst, is the youngest Superior Court judge ever to attain lifetime tenure in the state of New Jersey. He served on the bench from 1987 to 1995.

Napolitano tells Newsmax that the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can't simply move in there," Napolitano says. "And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they're doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

"The Congress can't simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…"

The judge also says he would rate President Obama as one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 9:18 AM

RIVERLOVE


bump for liberal cowards who attack one Conservative in packs, and then call him a coward. What fucking balls!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 9:24 AM

RIVERLOVE


Obama is a left-wing douche pushing his radical agenda on America. He sat in Rev Wright's Church Of Hate for 20 years where he listened to Black Liberation Theology, which is the Americanized version of Marxism, and includes re-distribution of wealth at its' core. Obama is a modern-day domestic terrorist just like his Chicago pal Bill Ayers. Except in these times, their methods have changed. They can't blow up buildings and kill people anymore, so they put on a suit, go into education and politics, all with the same goals as terrorist Bill Ayers, and racist reparations psychopath Rev Wright. Obama stayed in that ridiculous church not so much for anything to do with Jesus, but more to do with using that location as a place to start his climb up the smelly greasy pole that is Chicago politics. Obama is a blatant liar, he's a committed marxist, and his driving goal is to oversee the economic collapse of America for political purposes. But the absolute worst aspect of this son of a white trash slut is his complete lack of leadership for our country. Instead he is in perpetual campaign mode, attacking and mocking his political enemies at every turn. Instead of leading a united country, he seeks to create and ratchet up the divisiveness. That's what he's best at, being a little piece of shit crybaby asshole. It's disgustingly un-Presidential. He behaves like a little boy with a chip on his shoulder. He's petty and pathetic. But worse than that are his supporters; mindless naive fools that actually think he has something to say. People that are ready and willing to surrender their freedom and independence for the promises of this ego-maniacal charlatan. He'll be an easy sitting President to defeat in 2012, and he will go down in the history books as a Jimmy Carteresque abysmal failure. That is if his massive spending doesn't bankrupt the country first.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 10:07 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


BUMP!




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 10:12 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I didn't read any of that, I already know the verbiage, and nothing cited to back up the ranting. One article penned by "Napolitano, author of “Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History” and a Fox News senior judicial analyst" makes the cite questionable at best. You have ignored the material which shows that anyone who does not comply strictly with Murdoch's ideology isn't allowed to work at FauxNews, and those who DO are carefully watched to ensure they don't e-mail or talk to anyone who might disagree with him. Ergo, nothing coming out of FauxNews can conceivably disagree with Murdoch's propaganda.

However, wanna try some actual legal minds on the subject?
Quote:

According to Mark Rosen, a scholar at Chicago-Kent College of Law, the states do not really have much of a chance of prevailing. He said Congress clearly had authority under the Constitution’s supremacy clause to legislate reforms like the healthcare bill.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/26692
Quote:

Here we get to point two -- we’re talking about enforcement through the income tax code, an area where Congress has broad authority since 1913 that is consistently held up by the courts. In fact, as Prof. Hall points out, “our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional.” I’d actually take it a step further – no one is actually required to even purchase insurance, merely to pay a slightly heavier tax if they do not. And there is a process for those who truly cannot afford any insurance plan to quality for a hardship exemption.
http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/is_health_care_reform_unconstit
utional


Massachussetts' health care mandate was upheld by the courts:
Quote:

In the first legal challenge to Massachusetts' individual health insurance mandate, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge dismissed a suit by a Salem man who refused to tell the state whether he had health insurance in 2007.

“Clearly the court felt that the law’s been properly drafted and implemented and there weren’t any constitutional issues with moving forward on it and we’re obviously glad to have that opinion.”

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/wbur-posts-and-stories/2009/03/state-wins
-first-legal-challenge-to-individual-mandate
/
Quote:

Constitutional attacks fall into two basic categories: (1) lack of federal power (Congress simply lacks any power to do this under the main body of the Constitution); and (2) violation of individual rights protected by the “Bill of Rights.” Considering (1), Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy. Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good. The only possible objection is that mandating its purchase is not the same as “regulating” its purchase, but a mandate is just a stronger form of regulation. When Congressional power exists, nothing in law says that stronger actions are less supported than weaker ones.

An insurance mandate would be enforced through income tax laws, so even if a simple mandate were not a valid “regulation,” it still could fall easily within Congress’s plenary power to tax or not tax income. For instance, anyone purchasing insurance could be given an income tax credit, and those not purchasing could be assessed an income tax penalty. The only possible constitutional restriction is an archaic provision saying that if Congress imposes anything that amounts to a “head tax” or “poll tax” (that is, taxing people simply as people rather than taxing their income), then it must do so uniformly (that is, the same amount per person). This technical restriction is easily avoided by using income tax laws. Purists complain that taxes should be proportional to actual income and should not be used mainly to regulate economic behavior, but our tax code, for better or worse, is riddled with such regulatory provisions and so they are clearly constitutional.

Arguments about federal authority deal mainly with states’ rights and sovereign power, but the real basis for opposition is motivated more by sentiments about individual rights - the notion that government should not use its recognized authority to tell people how to spend their money. This notion of economic liberty had much greater traction in a prior era, but it has little basis in modern constitutional law. Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court used the concept of “substantive due process” to protect individual economic liberties, but the Court has thoroughly and repeatedly repudiated this body of law since the 1930s. Today, even Justice Scalia regards substantive due process as an “oxymoron.”

Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive. The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke Constitutional protection. In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/08/25/is-it-unconstitutional-to-
mandate-health-insurance
/

Not that I expect you to read it or necessarily understand it or be willing to admit it, but I put it up for others who may want to.




"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 10:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


By the way, the Repubs made a big to-do about "vote us in and we'll repeal the Health Care Reform Bill", in order to garner donations. Now, tho' some of them are still spouting it, quite a few have backed off and admitted that, even were they to gain majority in House and Senate, anything they passed to reform the bill would be vetoed by Obama. By the time the next Prez is elected (supposing Obama doesn't get a second term), nobody will be willing to repeal it.

So this is the second tactic, just as futile as the first one, but given the complexity of the bill, the non-specifics of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's unwillingness to stand up and show their bias publicly by judging in the attorneys' general favor, it's as futile as the first one, it'll just take longer to go through the courts.

The one Attorney General who had the sense to see the futility and say he didn't want to waste taxpayer money litigating something it was obvious would lose has sparked an attempt to IMPEACH him. That only goes to show how myopic and obsessively anti-Obama the governors are who are pushing this idea. THEY're quite happy to waste your money on fruitless legislation--you should be going after THEM.

Enjoy the wasting of your money and ranting incoherently, then come back and try to crow...or eat it.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 11:46 AM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/wbur-posts-and-stories/2009/03/state-wins
-first-legal-challenge-to-individual-mandate
/

(1) lack of federal power (Congress simply lacks any power to do this under the main body of the Constitution); and (2) violation of individual rights protected by the “Bill of Rights.” Considering (1), Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.



thats rediculous.. the "commerce clause" doesnt negate every other provision of the constitution. what purpose does the 10th amendment serve if the federal government can 'regulate.. any aspect of the national economy'? the commerce clause was written to protect interstate trade. so why isnt it used to enable interstate competition between insurance companies? its never used for commerce, its only used to justify expansion of federal authority. this bill is just an under-handed, slimy way of going around the constitution to create universal care. it is not 'insurance' by definition, when youre mandated to cover everything for everyone; it becomes wellfare. when the system becomes inoperable, the government will come in and nationalize the whole thing, just watch..

Quote:

Arguments about federal authority deal mainly with states’ rights and sovereign power, but the real basis for opposition is motivated more by sentiments about individual rights - the notion that government should not use its recognized authority to tell people how to spend their money.


this " notion that government should not use its recognized authority to tell people how to spend their money..." ?? those arent just 'sentiments', its the core principle of our republic

Quote:


Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court used the concept of “substantive due process” to protect individual economic liberties, but the Court has thoroughly and repeatedly repudiated this body of law since the 1930s. Today, even Justice Scalia regards substantive due process as an “oxymoron.”


Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when “fundamental rights” are involved. There may be fundamental rights to decide about medical treatments, but having insurance does not require anyone to undergo treatment. It only requires them to have a means to pay for any treatment they might choose to receive. The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke Constitutional protection. In short, there is no fundamental right to be uninsured, and so various arguments based on the Bill of Rights fall flat. The closest plausible argument is one based on a federal statute protecting religious liberty, but Congress is Constitutionally free to override one statute with another.



what the lawyers saying is: objections due to “substantive due process”, statues 'protecting religious liberty', and "various arguments based on the Bill of Rights".. well, theyve found a way around all that

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 12:14 PM

MAL4PREZ


Kwicko, Niki - why would you try? Anything you say to RL is not going to get a reasonable reply.

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. RL is clearly insane in this way. Are you?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 12:14 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.


This sounds an awful lot like one of PN's or Pat Robertson's prediction of complete global armageddon. So I will dismiss this "prediction" as I do those other predictions as well.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 12:27 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Kwicko, Niki - why would you try? Anything you say to RL is not going to get a reasonable reply.

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. RL is clearly insane in this way. Are you?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left




I don't know about Niki or you, but my only interactions with RL anymore are to taunt, tease, and mock incessantly. It amuses me some.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 12:28 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sorry, Mal4, gave in to impulse. I'll have to watch that in future...

I'd take after Mike, but it goes against the grain...still, sometimes, with some people...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 12:31 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Kwicko, Niki - why would you try? Anything you say to RL is not going to get a reasonable reply.

Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. RL is clearly insane in this way. Are you?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left




I don't know about Niki or you, but my only interactions with RL anymore are to taunt, tease, and mock incessantly. It amuses me some.

Yeah, I've gone there too. It is amusing, and just so easy.

But see what happens to RWED? Within days it turns back into what what it was a few years back: thread after thread with nothing but name-calling and this endless BS of yes-you-did no-I-didn't you're-lying no-you-re-lying. If Rappy/RL is out to destroy RWED as a source of information and mind-opening debate, he/she is succeeding.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 12:36 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, I don't think so Mal4. Yes, I get sick of that stuff real quick, too, but there are still plenty of interesting threads to get involved in...the real problem is Mike's desire to bait and continuing with the "yes you did" and name calling. If we could tone HIM down, it wouldn't encourage people like RL as much.

Which we of course have a snowball's chance in hell of doing...but if you want the real problem, he's "it". The others are easy to ignore, and if they don't get attention, they fade.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 12:46 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Which we of course have a snowball's chance in hell of doing...but if you want the real problem, he's "it". The others are easy to ignore, and if they don't get attention, they fade.

Really? You're saying Kwicko's the problem? I wouldn't go that far. I mean, he's not sticking with what I would consider the best solution, and in that way he contributes, but he is at least capable of being reasonable when there's some reason to work with. Rappy/RL are (is?) almost never coherent, not that I've seen.

I'd say pretty strongly that *they* are the problem, not him. Metaphorically speaking, his solution to a bully is to hit back, rather than to ignore. Doesn't work so good on the internet as far as getting rid of the bully, but I won't blame the entire fight on him. He doesn't start it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 2, 2010 2:50 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Yeah well, it's like pokin a pillbug to watch it roll up - it's maybe cute and amusing in a twisted sorta way at first, but yanno, after a while it gets OLD...

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 18:43 - 50 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL