Thread: Constitutionality of Obamacare

Originally Posted by mhailey

However the Legislature has the ability to overrule the Supreme Court by passing a law which reverses the opinion of the Court (or a constitutional amendment if it is a Constitutional question). The power of the Supreme Court is subject to the check and balance of the legislative branch.

Hmm? I guess in theory vs. practice. Hence why the Writ issued by the US Supreme Court. The beauty of the Supreme Court is that it is the "Court of Last Resort" and final body for interpretation of the constitution especially in regard to "act of the state and federal legislature".
IF such a situation ever occurred where the US Legislature passed a law in response to a Decision the court issued. That would mean the following:
a. the court issued a Writ to hear the case AGAINST consensus (as you know they are not required to hear cases and OFTEN refuse to hear them when they are blatantly unconstitutional matters at hand. Hence they are political appointments and often avoid questions that are "not ripe for decision" aka: sent back to the US House/Senate public opinion, cultural index). Therefore, the Court wouldn't or hasnt in its history issue a Writ for a case they had any indication would create the necessary majority in both bodies of legislators-and avoid VETO with the purpose of contradicting their opinion. That opinion essentially becomes LAW and can and would be enforced by the executive branch. Even if that were possible, that law passed would not be required to "do harm" because it originated out of government and they would most likely issue an immediate Writ to hear that case and find the law unconstitutional.

b. There have been many cases in where the legislative body was VERY against Supreme Court ruling (School Integration) and it took ages to carry out their orders due to State Laws in place etc.

C. The supreme court checks and balances are more often in the confirmation process. Because they are the FINAL arbiter of all matters constitutional in fact they pretty much go totally unchecked. ***the best evidence of this is search the constitution for the Supreme Court. You wont find it anywhere. You wont find its scope of power or function at all. In fact the Supreme Court granted ITSELF power through an opinion written. This is why they are not REQUIRED to answer ALL questions of law. They decide what cases to take and not to take. Thus, to avoid being either disbanded by the executive order OR as you say correctly an act of congress amending the constitution etc. During the great depression President Roosevelt threatened to "Stack" the supreme court if they struck down any more of his New Deal programs. The executive branch can expand or contract the seats on the bench.

D. Of course the problem with C is that IF congress or the President EVER even so much as whispered this as a suggestion the result would be a complete collapse in political structure, and world financial system. A sort of "constitutional crisis" because how would the major media explain that to the public at large in the USA or even the Foreign nations who buy our bonds? Government would literally implode and citizens would have zero confidence in the process of "Representative Republic".

Think of the function of the Supreme Court for a moment in current political climate: Gay Marriage as an example. Doesn't matter if you are FOR or AGAINST it. In the strict constitutional terms of it, State Laws that deny two consenting people to enter a CONTRACT (because Marriage is a contract legally speaking), this Denial based strictly on: 1. state's definition of Marriage (man and woman) 2. Separate Law that specifically states "same sex couples can not get married (aka enter a legally binding contract). These 2 points alone are TOTALLY AT ODDS with all the huge Supreme Court decisions of the 4th and 14th amendments with regard to discrimination and segregation etc.
So the question is WHY has the US Supreme Court NOT heard the question? Because "politically" they do NOT want to touch that deadly switch. For now they are letting the cases be tried in the lower courts, mainly the State Supreme Courts. They are hoping this takes years to do so that when they are finally forced to answer such and obvious question of constitutionality they will NOT be deciding IF gay marriage is constitutional or not, they will merely "strike down" State Supreme Courts decisions upholding bans on Gay Marriage calling them "Unconstitutional" because State Constitutions have a minimum requirement to be "as good" as the Federal Constitution.

This is why PERSONAL opinion should have nothing to do with it. Because IF the supreme Court were REQUIRED to answer ALL questions of constitutional matters they would have decided already, but they are not. So, in regard to personal opinion I look at it this way: the constitution itself and the Supreme Court is a "Double Edge Sword" It cuts BOTH WAYS. So I *MAY* be personally and totally offended by gay marriage. BUT the Constitution and the bill of rights forbids laws that prevent people from liberties enumerated in the constitution (ironically the constitution itself provides few rights and one is to enter contracts-hence why the amendments or the Bill of Rights).
On the other hand. A newly Married Gay Couple SHOULD VIGOROUSLY ADVOCATE for THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS, ANY TYPE I WANT. Why? Because of the double edge sword. IF personal views or religious belief govern decisions like this WE ALL BECOME VICTIMS at some point.

Laws preventing citizens of NYC from responsible self defense and owning hand guns ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL and so are laws preventing Gay couples from entering a legally binding contract called "marriage".

Does any of that make sense? Dont know if Im rambling. I find all too often these two extremes are at odds. So i use them as examples. Very liberal people want to fight the unconstitutionality of anti-gay marriage laws BUT on the other hand they have NO problem with a state either banning the 2nd amendment or intruding on my 4th amendment to privacy by making me register a rifle etc etc. But, on the other hand minors are free to have medical procedures like abortions in complete anonymity etc. The examples are stark.

Understand I am not advocating EITHER side. The only point I make is that IF one believes in the Constitution the result must in fact be that certain decisions will protect your interests directly and others may do no harm to you but benefit others interests. In the end what's critical is that the law protects ALL from a group of people who (ex; Hate guns) from snatching them.

I'm not entirely sure but it sounds like you would agree with this statement:
"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

In that a law guaranteeing rights is good, until it infringes upon the guaranteed rights of others?

I haven't looked at the Constitution since law school some 18 years ago, but from what I remember I don't think there is any is reason national healthcare would be a violation of the Constitution. I suspect they'd have to watch the details on how they implement it, because I could see them accidentally setting up certain mechanics that bump into Constitutional restrictions, but those would probably be easy to avoid.

But my question is, "What Obama healthcare plan?" Wasn't he still hoping Congress would write his plan (which is easy once he pronounced his ten basic commandments of what overhauling our entire healthcare system should look like)?

Originally Posted by loueedacat

my question is, "What Obama healthcare plan?"

This one: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf

Of course there are amendments being discussed and voted on. There are also alternative plans, including one in the Senate. So in the end, the "Obama healthcare plan" might not even offer a public option.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

This one: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf

Of course there are amendments being discussed and voted on. There are also alternative plans, including one in the Senate. So in the end, the "Obama healthcare plan" might not even offer a public option.

Finally!
Why doesn't it have his name anywhere in it - there are other names though? Did he write any parts, if so which ones, and how do we know that?
Why is it being amended, by others? Woildn't that make it Congrescare, and not Obamacare? If it'll turn the US communist, wouldn't it be the congress to blame for it and wouldn't that be just the legal representation if the will of the people?

His name is all over it, gugi Congress is just the multi-fingered hand of Obama

I've been reading this, and I agree, the Supreme Court can make almost anything constitutional. That said, here's how I feel about it.

First, I think the Federal Government has no business sticking their finger into this issue other than to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

Second, issuing fines for those who don't have or want health insurance reeks of arrogance. Again, that's none of the government's business.

Third, lumping illegals into the health care plan is just plain stupid. Either they become citizens and pay taxes or leave the country.

Fourth, notice that the UK, Canada, and other countries have tried this and it's bleeding them white with rising costs, taxes, and rationed care.

I did not vote for Obama and the only things he could do that I'd support is to resign, not run, or concede the election. I see this as socialism. As my grandmother put it, "You can't do for everyone."

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

His name is all over it, gugi Congress is just the multi-fingered hand of Obama

How many fingers is that? I bet it has something to do with him not being born in america, or at least being undocumented, which is probably even worse.

Originally Posted by gugi

How many fingers is that?

I don't know. What difference does it make? It was just a simile - or perhaps an anthropomorphism considering some of the members...

Makes a huge difference - if there is enough of them they can make it constitutional. Plus you voted them in, did you know at the time they were Obama's fingers or they just became that after?
Scratch that only 11% are new, the other 89% are there because you really like their track record, you should've expected Obama turning them into this.