Wednesday, March 28, 2012

scotus discuss constitution and health care: a BFD

So you've heard the 9 justices at the top USA court, yes, the supreme court of the united states (affectionately called 'scotus') is discussing O-scare this week.  Will the 2012 scotus go back and right some wrongs which have been in place since 1936?!

Why does anyone care?  What does it mean?  Can law be enacted to FORCE every individual in America to PURCHASE something?  (hint: that is NOT a "free" society!)...

Heritage comments on day 2:  "If Congress were able to regulate things that people will eventually have to do, then there would be virtually no limits to its power."

Everyone in America will be impacted by this decision: to continue down the path of leftist socialism or get back to a free, constitutional republic?  A couple good articles on this topic at AT worth reading are:

The Constitution, 'Constitutional Law,' and ObamaCare by George Leef who points out:

"Thus, the purpose of that clause was to remedy a problem that had arisen in the new nation -- namely, that some states were impeding the flow of commerce with laws favoring producers within their borders. To keep commerce "regular" meant that Congress could enact laws to prevent that abuse of power by the states. It was never meant, as Madison wrote, as a grant of power for whatever future Congresses might want to do to control everything relating to people's commercial affairs.
For a long time, that was how the Supreme Court understood the Commerce Clause. As late as 1935, the Court refused to accede to the "progressive" notion that the clause meant that Congress could intervene in business operations. In Schechter Poultry, the Court declared unconstitutional the National Industrial Recovery Act on the grounds that Congress had no authority to dictate to businesses how they must operate, nor to delegate such decisions to unelected bureaucracies.
Late in 1936, however, President Roosevelt, angered at a Court that had struck down many of his statist plans for controlling the nation's economy, issued his infamous threat to pack the Supreme Court. That plan met with a great deal of opposition within his own party, but it apparently worked on two members of the Court: Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen Roberts. When it came to deciding the test case involving FDR's extraordinarily authoritarian National Labor Relations Act in 1937, they switched from supporting the old, correct understanding of the Commerce Clause to supporting the "progressive interpretation" that the clause gave Congress power to enact any law that would somehow "affect" interstate commerce. The funny thing about that decision, Jones & Laughlin Steel, is that the majority never bothered to mention the Court's previous Commerce Clause decisions. It was as if Schechter disappeared into a black hole."

- and -

Supreme Court to Decide if the U.S. Constitution Is a Dead Letter by Bob Marshall who advises:

"In its ObamaCare briefs, the government relies heavily on the properly ridiculed 1942 Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn, which upheld a bureaucratic decision dictating the amount of wheat that a farmer grew for his family and his livestock, even though the wheat never traveled in or had any connection to interstate commerce. This was not a decision reached on the legal merits. Rather, it was the product of an unprecedented exercise of raw political power by President Roosevelt.
Shedding light on this dismal past may embarrass the Court into doing the right thing.

I hold out hope that if the Court focuses on how it was manipulated into its current jurisprudence, it just might be willing to re-examine whether it erred.

One of the great problems is that if the Supreme Court goes off-track long enough, those who agree with the policy result raise the defense of stare decisis -- the legal principle by which courts follow the precedent of prior cases. It is for this reason that lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court seem to discuss only rarely the original text of the Constitution, instead often analyzing Supreme Court decisions. However, the Constitution is what the Founders said it was -- not what the Court says it is.

But there are times when the Court recognizes that it went off-track, or allowed lower courts to do so, and chooses to return to the text of the Constitution. We have seen two instances of this recently, where the country is better off because the Court re-examined precedent in light of the Constitutional text."
Freedom vs Tyranny = a VERY big f*ing deal indeed

image of the doc which MUST be saved - from Jeanetta Lynn Parker

No comments:

Post a Comment