Skip to content
About these ads

Obamacare finally makes it to the Supreme Court

March 27, 2012

  This is a day which many–if not most–Americans have been waiting for for quite awhile now. Just a few days after we celebrated the second anniversary of the passing of Obamacare–curiously an anniversary Barack Obama chose to all but ignore–which, as John at Sentry Journal pointed out here, was ironic for having been signed into law on the very day that Patrick Henry gave his infamous ‘give me liberty, or give me death’ speech all those years ago, the controversial law has finally made it to the Supreme Court.

  Patrick Henry offered a choice, liberty or death, and was quite clear on which path he would rather follow. New Hampshire’s  Revolutionary War hero General John Stark also coined a famous phrase, in fact part of it is now the state motto, when he stated “live free or die: death is not the worst of all evils.” It is clear that many of our founders, and those who fought for freedom felt that liberty was worth dying for.

  Liberty, that is what is at stake here, (and no I am not calling for violent revolution or fighting in the streets, just simply pointing out how important individual liberty is and what it meant to the people who were willing to put their lives on the line to secure it), and liberty is the side we hope the Supreme Court will come down on with their decision, expected sometime in June.

    If the healthcare mandate is allowed to stand, and if Obamacare is upheld, the government will continue to extend its hand into the healthcare system; for once a power is granted to the government it only expands, it never contracts. If the government can force a person to buy healthcare under the premise that it will save the people money in the long run, is it too much of a stretch to think the government could start regulating salt, sugar, or fat intake? After all, bad eating habits also drive up the cost of healthcare, so could this not be used as a premise to regulate the diet of the American people as a legitimate way to regulate healthcare costs? And if so, where does it go from there? States are already trying to influence the masses through taxes on these items, could it soon be done through federal dictate?

  As Justice Kennedy stated earlier today, Obamacarem “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way,” and if changing the relationship between the government and the people in a fundamental way is not an issue of liberty, and if this is not changing the fabric of the government as defined in the constitution, I am afraid I do not know what is. This fundamental change in the the relationship between the people and the government could very well lead to the scenario I laid out above, in fact I believe it is the likely outcome.

  While drafting the constitution the founders relied heavily on the work of Montesquieu, adapting many of his tenants of the separation of powers, and at one point Montesquieu wrote about lawmakers trying to change the “mores and manners” of a nation through law:

“When one wants to change the mores and manners, one must not change them by laws, as this would appear to be too tyrannical.”

  Is that not what Obamacare, and the healthcare mandates, set out to do? If Justice Kennedy is correct that the fundamental relationship between the government and the people will be changed if the government is allowed to dictate to the people which products they can and must buy as a contingency for being a citizen of the United States, then yes, this is a sharp deviation from the original intent of the constitution, and an attempt to change through laws the mores and manners of the country.

  The constitution is the foundation of this country, and if the government is altering the fundamental relationship between the government and the people then the government is altering the constitution. The foundation of the country and the constitution are not only inseparable, they are one in the same, so when Barack Obama promised to fundamentally change America he was in essence promising to remove us from our constitutional roots and usher in a new age.

  The early signs in this hearing are encouraging as Barack Obama’s Solicitor General stumbles around trying to explain that a tax is not a tax when it is a penalty, and that a penalty is not a penalty when it is a tax, and a tax is a tax when it is a tax, and a penalty is a penalty when it is a penalty while trying to walk a tightrope around the very issue at hand in Obamacare challenge.

  We have one more day of testimony tomorrow as our liberty hangs in the balance and in June we will learn what type of future is in store for America. Will it be liberty, or will it be death for the republic as we know it?

About these ads
50 Comments leave one →
  1. lou222 permalink
    March 27, 2012 9:17 pm

    I will post this here as well, if anyone wants to hear the audio from today
    .
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday

    • March 27, 2012 9:33 pm

      Thanks for the link Lou!

  2. Jim Knight permalink
    March 27, 2012 9:20 pm

    The problem, Steve, as I portend it, is that this is an election year. God prove me wrong, please, but, in lieu of the arrogance of this administration, Eric Holder, et al, I would not be surprised the Supreme Court crumbles under political pressure. Of course it wioll be masqueraded as something other than subtle, political threats, but Sodamayer (I know I spelled that wrong) knows who buttered her side of the bread.

    If the court does in fact deem Obama-Care unconstituional, it will be a great victory for the Amerian people. If not . . . our country is indeed lost.

    • March 27, 2012 9:35 pm

      The four liberal justices are going to vote to uphold the law, the conservative justices shouldn’t feel any political pressure but is looks like Kennedy will be the swing vote. Judging by today I think it looks pretty good for our side.

  3. Peter McCullough permalink
    March 27, 2012 9:22 pm

    Obama should have whisperd to his Russian friend: “Wait till after my Obamacare is declared constitutional and last election ever to be held in the U.S. is over, then I will have the flexibility to give free health care to my friends, the Russian people.’ This will allow you guys to divert money from your health care programs to your nuclear weapons program and standing army. Then you along with the Chinese and Iran can box us in and finally we can have peace once I, as supreme ruler, disband the American military. Tell Putin to give me some space dude, he won’t be dissappointed, understand?
    Yes comrade, I understand. Now pat my arm as a signal to Putin that you are on our side. Святое дерьмо, Барри, тот микрофон горяч? (Holy shit Barry, is that mike hot?

    • lou222 permalink
      March 27, 2012 9:37 pm

      You might be onto something there, Peter, as strange as it seems.

    • March 28, 2012 9:46 am

      ;-)

  4. March 27, 2012 9:30 pm

    Our country can not survive Obamacare, Steve. I will be praying until the final decision comes down.

    • March 27, 2012 9:36 pm

      I agree, and I am hopeful after hearing what went down today.

    • lou222 permalink
      March 27, 2012 9:40 pm

      C on F, if it is deemed constitutional, what do we do then? I am a bit more hopeful after todays audio I listened to, but we have been hoodwinked before and the opposite outcome has happened. For something this important to come down to pretty much one Justice, well, that is NOT what the founders had in mind. What about OUR voices in this!!!

      • March 28, 2012 5:45 am

        If it is deemed constitutional I don’t think there is anything we can do from there other than to convince our legislators to begin tweeking it. I don’t care what the Republican candidates are saying on the campaign trial, they are not going to be able to repeal it so this is our one chance to get rid of this mess.

      • March 28, 2012 9:56 am

        Lou, our voices are heard in the election of our representatives, Senators and the President.

        The deliberations of the SCOTUS should be, and in most cases are, based not on the opinions or desires of the people, but on the Constitution and established law, both legislated and precedent. That’s why the Framers were wise enough to leave questions of law to toe Court and not to referenda.

        Remember that the Court is generally reluctant to overturn legislation. If the court decides not to overturn a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration (which is where politics enters into it), then the people – all of us – must decide if we want to let it stand. A June decision will leave plenty of time for the bill’s opponents to mount a massive campaign to elect US Representatives and 33 Senators committed to repealing it.

        Of course, if that happens, count on the other side to mount its own campaign . . .

        We sure do live in interesting times, don’t we?

        Take good care, and may God bless us all!

        TGY

      • lou222 permalink
        March 28, 2012 10:06 am

        TGY, yes we do live in interesting times. I am afraid that they might NOT base their votes on the Constitution, but on personal opinions. I understand what you just said, but all the same, it is unsettling. You do seem to be the “voice of reason” on such issues, I hope you are right.

      • March 28, 2012 8:58 pm

        Agreed TGY, our voices are heard in the election because we elect people to represent us. COnsidering the fact that Obama ran in the primary against Hillary’s proposed healthcare mandate before flip flopping on the issue after his election I have to wonder how many people feel duped and will let their voices be heard once again in November.

      • March 28, 2012 9:01 pm

        Lou, as much as we like to think that the constitution always is the deciding factor with SCOTUS the fact is that presidents always nominate justices who agree with them politically so politics always plays a role. Elections do have consequences and I can only hope that enough people realize what Obama has done and correct this wrong in November.

  5. March 27, 2012 9:43 pm

    Well put Steve. The SCOTUS now have the ball in their court. I’ve often been a severe critic of the high court, but pray they will come to the right decision this time. As I see it, this is a great conflict between the forces of collectivism and individalism and I have little doubt as to where the founders would stand on this. That aside, should the court uphold this law, it will have opened the door for those who wish to regulate amost all phases of american life and that if frightening, very frightening. We have been drifting toward a collectivist state for many years and just perhaps this court will see this and say no more to the social planners in Washington.

    • March 28, 2012 5:48 am

      Thanks Ron, and I think you are exactly right. This decision has the potential to profoundly change the type of country we will become in the future. This case is probably bigger than most people even realize and I hope that SCOTUS does the right thing.

    • March 28, 2012 10:14 am

      The thing is, the physical circumstances of our nation are far different today than they were in the late 18th century. Back then, you weren’t required to participate in the formal economy at all, and many didn’t, or did so only intermittently, and then just to be able to purchase staples – they farmed or hunted for their food, built their own residences, pumped their own water . . .

      It may be possible for individuals to do so today, but not in any great number. From the moment you’re born, you must participate in the economy, if not de jure, then certainly de facto.

      As for health care, it’s an area of the economy we all will participate in sooner or later. It’s not like food, where we have no desire to avoid it altogether, even if we want to avoid broccoli.

      Take good care, and may God bless us all!

      TGY

      • March 28, 2012 9:03 pm

        A very interesting and legitimate point TGY, but still it should be left up to the individual and the healthcare mandate takes that choice away from the individual and puts it in the hands of the government.

  6. bunkerville permalink
    March 27, 2012 9:59 pm

    Looking good, though Charles Krauthammer was concerned with Kennedy in the 2nd hour towards the end. He felt he was looking of a way out. I have not gotton that far, though a good first start.

    • March 28, 2012 5:50 am

      It does look good so far, although we can never be certain until the ruling actually comes out. Here’s hoping the last day goes just as well.

  7. SMITH & WESSON 500 permalink
    March 27, 2012 9:59 pm

    I ALWAY SAY THIS PROBLEM WILL BE FIXED AT THE BALLOT BOX NOT THE AMMO BOX ,!

  8. John Carey permalink
    March 28, 2012 12:30 am

    Great post my friend and thank you for the mention. If the individual mandate is upheld by the SCOTUS then this is no longer a need for the SCOTUS because the constitution will be essentially dead.

    Remember those power moving words written in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    These were the words of a people who felt oppressed by their own countrymen, their own leaders. Here is my question, if the individual mandate is upheld has the government become destructive of these ends in regards to securing our rights? I believe this is the question that both the left and the right need to ponder. Because in the end both sides will lose their liberty if the individual mandate is upheld. Just my two cents.

    • March 28, 2012 5:54 am

      Thanks John, and you are welcome. This case will have lasting ramifications if the mandate is upheld and I do believe we will have reached a point where the constitution will just be a memory. A non-binding resolution of sorts.

    • lou222 permalink
      March 28, 2012 8:26 am

      John, I am not so sure that the left is looking that far ahead. They seem to have very limiteed sight when it comes to what the administration wants. Like you, I believe both sides will lose so much, but for now, that doesn’t seem to be in play. Today is a BIG deal and I hope I can find the audio of it, as well. If it is allowed to stand, I doubt there is anything that the government can’t make us purchase or do, if we are told it is for our best interest. Life, will be questionable if this goes thru, Liberty will be compromised and the pursuit of Happiness will be a pipe dream.

  9. March 28, 2012 2:53 am

    The government simply can’t force people to buy stuff. That’ll be the lesson coming out of this entire thing. Liberals simply can’t wrap their heads around this. Revealed in the discussions today was the fact that Liberals know young people don’t want to buy health insurance because they need the money more than they need coverage but the telling remark was that these people were needed to pay for the older ones who do need the insurance which, in a way, makes Obamakare a tax.

    • March 28, 2012 5:56 am

      The whole argument was twisted into circles yesterday and Monday. The justices seem to be having their way with Obama’s solicitor general and that is because the regime never crafted an honest and legitimate argument that Obamacare was constitutional.

  10. March 28, 2012 5:48 am

    I have been reading and listening to Jamie Dupree, who frequents the Neal Boortz show quite a bit. I subscribe to his blog because he is very even handed in the way he reports. In his reports on yesterday’s arguments, he said it is clear the individual mandate is in trouble. His main question was what happens if the mandate is struck down. If it is, does that make the entire law unconstitutional or does the other parts remain standing?

    • March 28, 2012 5:57 am

      I have read a few people who had predicted the mandate would be upheld change their minds after yesterday’s proceeding. I believe the SCOTUS will also make the decisioin on whether or not Obamacare can stand without the mandate.

    • March 28, 2012 10:20 am

      My great respect for Jamie Dupree notwithstanding, I wouldn’t put a lot of stock into the questions asked during oral arguments – it’s not like scoring a debate, where the side that made the most points wins. Remember that after this week, the Justices will spend perhaps ten weeks discussing the case among themselves. They are not limited simply to the arguments presented this week and the answers to the questions they posed.

      Also, my understanding is that today’s (Wednesday’s) session will address the issue of what happens to PPACA if only the individual mandate is struck down.

      • March 28, 2012 9:05 pm

        I agree TGY, at this point it is only speculation and anything can happen when the justices get behind closed doors to debate this issue. But it still is interesting to watch this play out.

  11. Peter McCullough permalink
    March 28, 2012 8:59 am

    Now that the New Black Panther Party has been given the OK to empower death squads, they along with the Obamacare death panels should be able to winnow the population down to a manageable number. Since elections will be a thing of the past the NBPP will be able to divert the poll intimidators to SS duty.

    • lou222 permalink
      March 28, 2012 10:13 am

      Peter, I seem to not have read that anywhere. Where did you see they were given the OK to empower death squads? Surely that cannot be! For a group to be given that kind of power, especially a group that is so radical, IS a big deal. I hope you misread it or it was in error, if se we have bigger problems that I thought. That will surely cause a racial divide, if not race riots.

      • March 28, 2012 9:07 pm

        I believe that Peter is referring to the boutnty the Black Panthers put on Zimmerman’s capture and the unwillingness of Barack Obama to condemn this acion. By remaining silent on this issue he is in effect condoning it to a point.

    • March 28, 2012 10:21 am

      Yeh, what lou said . . .

      • lou222 permalink
        March 28, 2012 11:49 am

        Typed fast and had a couple of misspelled words, oh well, at least you understood what I put.

    • March 31, 2012 11:00 am

      Oh. If you’re referring to the NBP’s issuing a bounty on Zimmerman, I’m not sure there’s any violation of federal law, but Boortz advises that it violates a whole slew of Florida laws – paying someone to commit a crime, or offering to do so, is against the law in most states.

      On the other hand, if the state were to step in and arrest these race pimps, it’d be playing right into their hands.

      Florida has handled this case with appalling clumsiness – it’s even managed to resurrect Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as wannabe players on the national scene, and seems to be intent on radicalizing and alienating a whole new generation of black people and other minorities.

      • lou222 permalink
        March 31, 2012 12:01 pm

        TGY, there is no good that will come out of this with Sharpton and Jackson involved.

      • March 31, 2012 12:40 pm

        I don’t think there really is anything FLorida can do at this point without making the situation worse. I fear that this is going to get ugly before it is over and Sharpton and Jackson will be partly responsible.

  12. Peter McCullough permalink
    March 28, 2012 11:09 am

    Lighten up…life’s stupid, keep laughing, satire is good. If I insulted any of the NBPP whitey haters, I apologize.

    • lou222 permalink
      March 28, 2012 11:57 am

      Peter, don’t think there are any “NBPP whitey haters” on this post, but still wondered where you read that. If it was pure satire, then please post it as such, this is serious and there are alot of VERY angry people on both sides that are just itching for a fight. It could escalate to something that no one wants to see happen. I am not sure of your age, but if you are in your 50′s or over, you should realize what all can happen with race riots.

  13. Peter McCullough permalink
    March 28, 2012 12:28 pm

    Pure satire is self evident and does not require foot notes.

  14. Anonymous permalink
    March 28, 2012 2:09 pm

    Peter – Don’t apologize to the NBPP racists. They are what they are, low life, ignorant, pathetic haters. They deserve no consideration or any sort and in anyway. They are the “black” equivalent of the White Power racists. Both groups need be purged from the human race.

    When I was in law enforcement it was no secret that these animals would cap you if they could get away with it. The FBI and everyone else prior to this administration knew that. However the new social justice crowd under Erick Holder seems to have no problem with either them or their policies of hate and intimidation.

    In December of 2010 White House visitor logs were released showing that Malik Shabazz, leader of this clowns was a guest at the White House four separate times. With that said those visits speak for themselves….WM

    • lou222 permalink
      March 28, 2012 3:43 pm

      This is not a subject that needs to be joked about as it was above. If you were in law enforcement you know how quickly it can escalate then. Thugs are thugs, it doesn’t matter what race they are.

      • March 28, 2012 9:09 pm

        Agreed Lou, and we are seeing this escalate as we write.

  15. lou222 permalink
    March 28, 2012 4:48 pm

    Wednesdays audio of the SCOTUS argument:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-400

    • March 28, 2012 9:09 pm

      Thanks for the link!

  16. Peter McCullough permalink
    March 28, 2012 9:12 pm

    Anonymous: Funny that you should mention the Malikmeister. Today he threatened to burn down Detroit if the state mandates fiscal responsibility which will lead to program cutting. Hey, this is serious stuff and I’m not resorting to satire man!

    • lou222 permalink
      March 29, 2012 8:04 am

      Peter, from the pic and the note under it, it said it was NOT the same Malik, the pic was of a different guy, so maybe there are TWO Malik Shabazz’s? I thought they said it was the mayor adn they made a note of saying to NOT confuse him with the other one. If I sounded a bit upset about what you had posted above, sorry. I grew up in a bad area, East St. Louis, when the riots were going on, so I sure don’t want to see it happen again. I will remember next time, that you DO joke about stuff…

    • lou222 permalink
      March 29, 2012 9:29 am

      Peter, I forgot to attach the link to the article I was referring to above:
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/minister-malik-shabazz-threatens-to-burn-down-detroit-over-white-supremacy/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,371 other followers

%d bloggers like this: