Posts Tagged constitutionality
T.L. Davis at the American Thinker takes a look at how Obamacare has sparked a crisis of how people (and politicians) view the US Constitution:
The debate is also a stage-setting for the greater issues of how to read the Constitution. There are two schools of thought on the issue of constitutionality: the Literalist school and the Case Law school. Each one approaches the document from a different point of view. The Literalist reads the words and meanings as they are presented without nuance, whereas the Case Law adherent reads the Constitution as seen through the filters of case law and precedent. The words they see are not the words themselves, but placeholders for an extended file of subsequent cases and rulings. Read the rest of this entry »
Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy covers the recent dismissal of a lawsuit against the Obamacare mandate by a California District, on the basis of lack of standing:
This decision is at odds with rulings by district courts in Virginia, Michigan, and Florida, all of which concluded that a variety of plaintiffs challenging the mandate — state governments, individuals, employers, and the National Federation of Independent Business — do indeed have standing. Read the rest of this entry »
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:
In following up on the discussion of the constitutionality of the individual mandate in Obamacare, Peter Suderman at Reason Magazine slams the argument that the left relies upon: the Commerce Clause authorizes it.
How does the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, allow Congress to prohibit the decision to not purchase health insurance—something that involves no commercial transactions, much less commercial transactions across state lines, and which couldn’t possibly involve interstate commerce anyway given that there’s currently no way to buy insurance across state lines[?] Read the rest of this entry »
The attorneys general of 14 states are suing the federal government over the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Democratic leaders have downplayed any potential legal problems with the healthcare reform package. Many legal analysts agree with them. Others suggest the issue is open and could produce a landmark decision if the high court decides to take it up.
In addition to Florida, participating plaintiffs in the lawsuit include attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington State, Idaho, and South Dakota. The suing attorneys general are Republicans except James “Buddy” Caldwell of Louisiana, who is a Democrat.
The Florida-filed lawsuit identifies two victims. It says the new law infringes the liberty of individual state residents to choose for themselves whether to have health insurance. It also says the states themselves are victims of a federal power grab by leaders in Washington. Read the rest of this entry »
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 »