Ron Paul on The Supreme Court and Obamacare

[FoundingFathers]

The Supreme Court and Obamacare

By: Ron Paul | Mon, Apr 2, 2012

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It's doubtful the entire law will be struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government's powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to "regulate" commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don't want to limit federal power in any way.

The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state-- a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.

But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades, at least since the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. In that instance the Court decided that a farmer growing wheat for purely personal use still affected interstate commerce--presumably by not participating in it! As economist Thomas Sowell explains in a recent article, the Wickard case marked the final death of federalism: if the federal government can regulate "anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendment's limitations on the power of the federal government virtually disappeared."

It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must oppose. Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states' rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.

While I'm heartened that many conservatives understand this mandate exceeds the strictly enumerated powers of Congress, there are many federal mandates conservatives casually accept. The Medicare part D bill-- passed under a Republican President and a Republican House--mandates that you submit payroll taxes to provide prescription drugs to seniors. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, also passed by Republicans, mandates that companies expend countless hours of costly manpower producing useless reports. Selective service laws, supported by defense hawks, mandate that young people sign up for potential conscription. I understand the distinction between these mandates and Obamacare, but the bigger point is that Congress routinely imposes mandates that are wildly beyond the scope of Article I, Section 8.

Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles. We must forcefully oppose lawless government, and demand a return to federalism by electing a Congress that legislates only within its strictly limited authority under Article I, Section 8.

[Scorpio]

It is federalism and states' rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.

This is my problem also, that the supreme court is too politicized and not 'neutral', resulting in a serious problem with lifetime appointments.

Which is why I say that this should change, that no one associated with govt at any level should be in 'lifetime' status.

and then it could be argued that this is contrary to the constitution also,

in this then, I am guilty,

According to Federalist paper number 78, the Judicial branch of government is intended to be the weakest branch of government. This is because it was meant that the judiciaries strictly upheld the purposes of the Constitution; therefore, individual ideologies did not come into effect. Federalists 78 intended that the Judicial branch of government be independent of the other two branches.

The purpose of having supreme court judges rule for life-terms is so that the judiciaries can be left to do their business with no threat of losing their jobs. If they could be easily thrown out of government, they would could have their decisions swayed a certain way, and no longer be impartial and independent.

Government is based on a system of checks and balances, because the other two branches of government are up for reelection, and the judicial branch isn't, the judicial branch doesn't have to worry about reflecting public opinion. It then balances out the other two branches of government who may have more immediate goals during their short terms.

Federal Judges are appointed for life to insulate them from popular opinion. They are never up for "re-election" and therefore do not have to concern themselves with serving the majority. This is one of the ways that the Constitution protects the rights of minorities.

If supreme court justices had term limits, it might bias their rulings based on reelection. With a lifetime appointment, they can vote their conscience without fear of reprisal.

these answers are interesting,

for instance, one says it is supposed to be the weakest level of govt, and it is far from that at this stage,

secondly, the other states that they would cater to re-election, should they not have lifetime status. How about 10 year flat terms? Ie, they never come up for re-election, and their successors are out of their hands?

Scorp

[FoundingFathers]

then there's this...


Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.

In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Pointed comments from Supreme Court justices last week during three days of compelling hearings have convinced many commentators that the court, expected to rule in June, will declare the law, dubbed ObamaCare, unconstitutional.

Such a move would electrify the White House race, puncture Obama's claims to be a reformer in the grand political tradition, and throw the US health care industry into chaos.

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the "unelected" Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

"I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden with the leaders of Canada and Mexico in his first comments on last week's hearings.

Obama's comments will be seen as a warning shot to the court, one of the three branches of the US government, and could draw complaints from critics that he is trying to influence the deliberations.

The health care case is the most closely watched Supreme Court deliberation since a divided bench handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush over Al Gore, and could have far reaching political implications.

Obama also argued there was a "human element" to the health care battle, as well as legal and political dimensions.

He said that without the law, passed after a fierce battle with Republicans in 2010, several million children would not have health care, and millions more adults with pre-existing conditions would also be deprived of treatment.

Opponents of the health care law argue that the government has overreached its powers by requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.

But supporters say that the government is within its rights to regulate the health industry as it has the power to oversee commerce across state borders.

Without the mandate, they say, the costs of insuring an extra 32 million Americans would be prohibitive to the private health insurance industry.

The Affordable Care Act is highly polarizing in US politics as the election approaches and Obama is yet to get a political dividend for the huge expenditure of political capital required to pass the legislation.

If the court upholds the law, and he wins reelection in November, the legislation will likely stand for years, as it will be fully implemented by 2014, two years before his second term draws to a close.

But Republicans running to replace him in the November 6 election have all vowed to repeal ObamaCare.

"I think it's important... to remind people that this is not an abstract argument," Obama said.

"The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn't otherwise have it.

"There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-o...192629533.html