Posts Tagged Constitution

Repealing the 17th Amendment

The US Constitution established a unique form of government that accommodated the concerns of the people in general as well as the governments of the States that comprise the union. This was initially established by means of the Great Compromise, which formed a bicameral legislature featuring a House of Representative to represent the concerns of the people, and a Senate to address concerns of the States. The Senators were to be selected by the state legislators and represent their positions and concerns to the federal government.

That is, until the 17th Amendment was passed. Establishing the popular election of Senators, the 17th Amendment effectively ended the representation of State interests to the federal government, essentially establishing a second House of Representatives that held more power for longer than the first. Read the rest of this entry »



Leave a comment

Judge Napolitano on the Unconstitutionality of Obamacare

Judge Andrew Napolotano, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, guest hosted the Glenn Beck program, and outlined his argument as to why Obamacare is unconstitutional. Compliments of IUSB Vision:

, , ,

1 Comment

John Conyers and a Constitutional Mandate

Representative John Conyers, head of the House Judiciary Committee, when asked by CNS News where the Constitution authorized the massive power grab exhibited by Obamacare (specifically the individual mandate), had the following to say:

Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know — I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know — they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.” Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

1 Comment

The Slaughter Solution, Obamacare, and Constitutionality (Updated)

Previously I mentioned that the constitutionality of Obamacare has been under question for a while now, especially with regards to the individual mandate for insurance. The more significant question now seems to be the constitutionality of how it will be passed. Probably due to the unpopularity of the bill, it doesn’t seem  likely that the bill will actually pass an up or down vote at this point. The House has passed one version, and the Senate has passed another, but the two proposals have to be reworked, agree with one another, and then be re-voted on. Since that doesn’t seem likely, especially given that the Senate Republicans can now filibuster the bill, the Democrats are resorting to thuggery to force the bill through.

Here’s how it’s working. The House doesn’t like the Senate bill, but they can still vote to pass it, which would allow it to be sent to the president. The Senate probably won’t be able to pass either version of the bill again, so it comes down to the House. So instead of actually voting on the Senate version — a vote that would likely fail — Pelosi wants to employ what is known as the Slaughter Rule, and simply vote for a resolution that says they already passed the Senate bill.

Only one small problem. That’s kind of in direct violation of the Constitution. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , ,

1 Comment

The Constitutionality of Obamacare

The MaryHunter at Moonbattery revisits the question of whether Obamacare is constitutional or not.

[I]f some states pass laws or state constitutional amendments to try an end-around of ObamaCare, will these efforts stand up to the power of the federal government?

One debated issue is at the nexus of two Constitutional points: the “federal supremacy” clause in the Constitution, which could be interpreted as making ObamaCare trump all “opt-out” state laws, vs. the clear constitutional prohibition of “capitation” taxes. There’s a compelling argument that an individual health care insurance mandate, the core of the bill, is unconstitutional because penalty taxes are imposed on those who refuse government-approved health insurance. Read the rest of this entry »

, ,



Robert VerBruggen at The American Spectator features an article on judicial conservatism and originalism. Excerpts:

A “conservative” judge is not one who always votes to uphold conservative laws and to strike down liberal ones. Rather, when observers call a judge “conservative,” they typically mean that he is to some degree an originalist. That is, he believes that laws have reasonably definite meanings, set by the words within them, and that these meanings do not change over time. Originalists do not believe that the Constitution is “living,” and most originalists agree that judges should avoid looking beyond the text of enacted laws, except to learn the context and meaning of the laws themselves. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , ,

Leave a comment