Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare: What It Means, What Happens Next


Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare: What It Means, What Happens Next

By Daniel Fisher

Forbes

June 28, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court today voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, refusing to overturn the unpopular law and sending the issue back to voters to decide in the upcoming presidential election.

The 5-4 decision found the individual mandate at the heart of the law was a tax and therefore allowable under Congress’ constitutional power to levy taxes. Roberts joined the conservative wing in finding the law otherwise would have violated the Commerce Clause, however, by exceeding the power of Congress.

The decision is a victory for liberals who for decades had been pushing for a federal law to provide health insurance to every citizen. It’s also likely to be a boon for presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who can now campaign even more vigorously on a platform of repealing the unpopular law –modeled, ironically enough, on one he signed as Massachusetts governor — and replace it with less intrusive measures.

Click Here to Read More

(Partisan Ranger Note: This should serve as a reminder or a wake up call to Republicans that though conservatives are good at playing lip service to such issues as the Constitution and individual liberty, when the rubber hits the road, they will always side with central government power against the rights of the individual. As a side note, it should also be remembered that in no place in the Constitution is the Supreme Court named as the final arbitrator of Constitutional matters. This issue should not be final. )

Advertisements

About partisanrangershow

Freedom fighter
This entry was posted in Editorials, Hot Topics, The Constitution Under Seige...and Defended. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare: What It Means, What Happens Next

  1. Cromwell says:

    A sad day.

  2. gideon says:

    Next will be the GUN tax….

  3. gideon says:

    Good point. “…no place in the Constitution is the Supreme Court named as the final arbitrator of Constitutional matters. ” People are confused by this in part because of the usage alternately of, Ruling and Opinion. To think that the Founders gave 9 people that kind of power doesn’t make sense to any thinking person.

    • In no section of Article III of the Constitution is the court given that sort of power. Its main function was as an arbitrator between the states. The number of 9 justices is not found in the article nor is lifetime appointment found there. Those things were done through an act of congress. Furthermore, the power of judicial review in matters regarding the constitutionality of law, that is a power that the court granted to itself in the 1803 Marbury versus Madison case. In its simplest and most strict construction of its power, the court should read a law and determine whether or not the Constitution grants the federal government the power to do that. This should be a simple act through simply reading the Constitution. Is that power specifically enumerated? If not, they must deem the law to be contrary to the Constitution. It is as simple as that. The problem with the court is wrapped up in the “living Constitution” argument. The bench feels it has the power to interpret the Constitution based upon its own views (always centered around expanding and strengthening central government power). The Constitution is a living document, but it is alive through the amendment process found in Article V. The fact is, if the Constitution can be changed through interpretation then really there is no Constitution.

  4. gideon says:

    Thanks for the clarity. Usually find myself looking for where it says they can’t. More importantly, does say they can. Is it enumerated? Thanks again. I hope to GOD your teaching or at least giving lectures somewhere besides here.

    • Working all of the time, my friend. 7 to 6 job, gardening, chasing children. I don’t have time to lecture anyone but myself.

    • You bring up an interesting point: the importance of what they specifically can do and what is not enumerated. Of course, the modern “living Constitution” people always talk about “implied” powers. I consider that a BS argument. One could argue that any document may imply almost anything. They split hairs to “legally” justify everything.

  5. gideon says:

    http://www.wnd.com/2008/10/79225/
    That’s the interview where BHO talks about “negative liberties” and other interesting revealings of his view of the Constitution. Fits well with your comment.

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