Commerce Clause

One Dark Part Of The Supreme Court Decision On “Obamacare”: Commerce Clause Limited For First Time Since New Deal, Thrilling Libertarians!

Ronald Leave a comment

As one analyzes the Supreme Court decision on “ObamaCare” written by Chief Justice John Roberts, in the midst of the celebration, one has to pause and be concerned about Roberts’ assertion that the “commerce clause”, utilized regularly since the New Deal to permit expansion of federal power, was declared limited by a 5-4 vote of Roberts and all four Republican and conservative appointments on the Court—Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito–and vigorously opposed by the four Democratic and liberal appointments—Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Instead, Roberts said the law was constitutional based on the “mandate” being a tax.

LIbertarians are cheered by this aspect of the case, but it COULD effectively limit federal power, and restore states rights back to the pre 1930s view, which would indeed be tragic in so many ways!

So the battle over the future of government, and over what the Roberts majority opinion means for the long term, will be the subject of much discussion, debate, and cases over the coming years!

Barack Obama On The Attack Against Republicans And Conservatives: Critical Of The Supreme Court And The Paul Ryan Budget Plan

Ronald Leave a comment

Barack Obama has gone on the offensive against conservative and Republican philosophy, both on the Supreme Court and in Congress.

Already throwing down the gauntlet to the Supreme Court yesterday, Obama pointed out that the commerce clause and Supreme Court case history and two Circuit Court Judges (Laurence Silberman and Jeffrey Sutton) are a call for backing the Obama Health Care law, and it is clear that IF the Court declares it unconstitutional, the Court itself will be an issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign of 2012. And it is certain that the KEY issue of 2012, no matter what happens, is to realize that the future judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the lower courts matter more than ANYTHING economic or foreign policy related, because the judiciary is a lifetime appointment!

If we are upset over a 5-4 Court to the right, imagine a 7-2 Court under a Republican President when and if Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, both in their 70s, leave the Court over the next four to eight years!

But today, President Obama is also mounting a full scale assault on the Paul Ryan budget plan adopted by the House Republican majority for the second year in a row, which includes massive tax cuts to the rich beyond the Bush tax cuts, and major cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and all other domestic spending programs that benefit the poor and the struggling middle class, as well as the elderly.

Obama is calling it today’s “Social Darwinism”, the prevalent philosophy of the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, a period being matched and surpassed with the growing concentration of wealth in the top one percent of the population in the past ten years, and now threatening to be even more concentrated under the budget plan of the House Budget Committee Chairman.

And with the growing possibility that Ryan might be the Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, the future of the nation is at stake on the Supreme Court and lower courts, and also on the Presidential and Vice Presidential level, along with the Congressional actions in future years.

This is a battle for survival of the middle class, and the continuation of understanding the plight of the poor, as class division and the potential for class warfare grows!

Conservatives Who Support The Obama Health Care Law: Charles Fried, Laurence Silberman, Jeffrey Sutton

Ronald Leave a comment

Three major conservative leaders have made clear by statements and actions that they believe the Obama Health Care law is constitutional under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

Charles Fried, who was Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, was highly critical of some of the questioning by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court this past week. Fried said health care is interstate commerce, and that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. The arguments utilized in questioning are “phony rhetoric” in Fried’s mind.

Judge Laurence Silberman of the DC Court Of Appeals upheld the Obama Health Care law as constitutional in one of the cases brought by states before circuit courts on the way to the Supreme Court, decided on November 8, 2011. He has been a federal judge for 27 years, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, and is a good friend, of all people, of Justice Clarence Thomas, who is seen as a guaranteed vote against the Obama Health Care law.

And Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit Court Of Appeals upheld the health care law on June 29, 2011, and is seen as a leader of the conservative Federalist Society! He was appointed by George W. Bush, and is considered a disciple of Justice Antonin Scalia! He is well known as a states rights advocate!

So go figure!

This tells us ANYTHING can happen on this Court decision, and not to come to a conclusion this early that the Obama Health Care law is going to be overturned!

Two Year Anniversary Of Health Care Law, And Oral Arguments On Case Next Week In Supreme Court

Ronald Leave a comment

The Affordable Care Act, the Obama Health Care legislation, hits its two year anniversary this week, and next week, the US Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the legislation, seen as the landmark case of the past decade by many, and as the crucial issue that will have a dramatic effect either way on the upcoming Presidential Election of 2012.

The Obama Health Care law has allowed young people to remain on their parents’ health insurance to age 26; has prevented pre-existing conditions from being used to deny health care; and has cut down the “donut hole” for senior citizens in relation to their prescription costs.

Many other reforms must wait until 2014, assuming that the Supreme Court does not declare the whole act unconstitutional.

There is furious action to try to destroy the signature legislation that really defines the Obama Presidency, a law that took a full year to pass, and that was passed on party lines, which is actually not at all unusual in history.

Some federal judges have upheld the legislation, while others have challenged it, and it will be argued by both sides over three days for the unusually long total period of six hours, showing just how significant this case is!

As it seems now, the four “liberal” Justices–Bill Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and Barack Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—will support the legislation.

For it to survive in one piece, at least one of the five “conservative” Justices would have to join the four liberal appointees of Clinton and Obama.

Anthony Kennedy, usually the swing vote, and usually joining the liberals on about one third of the cases before the Court, is thought to be a good bet, but not a guarantee.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who is very aware of the significance of this case for the Court and for his reputation, is thought to join in the majority, but again no certainty.

Ironically, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who one would think would be opposed, has indicated in other cases as hints that he just might support the legislation.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito is thought less likely to support the legislation, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is thought to be the one certain, guaranteed vote against the health care legislation.

The argument for the legislation is the application of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which has been utilized over and over again by the US Supreme Court in the past, adding to the powers of the federal government. This was the same controversy with the Social Security Act, with a conservative oriented Supreme Court in the 1930s, and that legislation was upheld.

The argument against is based on opposition to the so called “mandate” that all citizens MUST obtain health insurance coverage by 2014, or face a fine.

What the critics fail to address is that when someone does not have health insurance and ends up needing medical care, he or she ends up in the emergency room, and all of us have to pay for the health care provided. Is it proper that some have no health care coverage and gain medical aid, and the rest of us have to pay for our health care, and also for those who are irresponsible enough to avoid paying for care that he or she knows he or she can gain for free?

This is the crux of the matter, and it is hoped and believed that a majority of the Supreme Court will end up backing the Health Care law, with a prediction by many of at least 5-4, but even possibly 6-3, or 7-2, or even 8-1.

A victory by more than 5-4 would be a real endorsement of the health care legislation, while a 5-4 defeat would be a major blow to 50 million citizens who benefit from the legislation.

In either case, this decision, when it is announced in June, will have a transformative effect on our nation, and on the Presidential Election of 2012. We will all wait with “baited breath” for the result!

First Appeals Court Test Of Obama Health Care Law: It Is Constitutional!

Ronald Leave a comment

In the first appeals court test of Barack Obama’s Health Care Reform this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati voted 2-1 that the law was constitutional!

There will be two more such judgments by Courts of Appeal in Atlanta and Richmond, before the subject goes to the US Supreme Court for final judgment this coming term.

Interestingly, the two judges voting in favor were a Carter appointee and a George W. Bush selection, while the one judge opposed was a Reagan pick.

The majority upheld the concept that an individual “mandate” to buy health insurance was legitimate, as refusing to insure oneself puts the burden on everyone else when a person not insured ends up having to obtain health care that he has not paid for. The financial burden, therefore, falls on others because a person is irresponsible in obtaining his own health care, but cannot be denied care, nevertheless.

So the majority upheld the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as making mandated health insurance coverage an acceptable use of federal power!

In five District Court judgments, judges have divided directly on partisan limes, with three Democratic appointees backing the law, and two Republican selections opposing the legislation.

So it will be up to the Supreme Court, in what will be one of the most watched and significant cases in the next term of the Court, and just in time for the Presidential Election of 2012!