"If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain."In other words, we would have a Constitution in name only, not a document that actually has power over the lawmakers and can limit their activities as originally intended.
I hope the Supreme Court sees it the same way.
Oh, and how about this: The judge uses Obama's own words against him:
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.The White House responded with this rather lame statement:
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Senior WH official: Fla. ruling on #healthcare "is a plain case of judicial overreaching" & "contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent"You mean like when Brown v. Board of Education contradicted decades of Supreme Court precedent that stated that "separate but equal" was constitutional? I don't think the left was particularly exercised about that overturning of precedent.
2 comments:
Great post! Obamacare needs to be thrown in the ash heap of history.
It matters not. Obama will ignore the decision, as he did the one on the gulf drilling ban, and full steam ahead with this and all of his agenda until he is actually stopped. He will also remain in office until he can be proven ineligible and actually be removed, highly unlikely.
Post a Comment