The American Spectator : The Legal Future of Obamacare

As of this moment Obamacare is officially not the law of the land. As Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled on Monday in Florida, "[T]here is a long standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction." That law as declared by the Federal District Court in Florida is now that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

This, of course, is the second federal court ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional, following the ruling of Judge Henry Hudson in the Northern District of Virginia on December 13. I predicted in this space at the time that Judge Vinson would rule the same. Now he has. I filed amicus curiae briefs in both cases on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union arguing for these results. Those briefs drew on my work in The Obamacare Disaster: An Appraisal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, published by the Heartland Institute.

Recall former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi laughing off Tea Party objections that Obamacare was unconstitutional with the reply, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Now she knows just how serious we were.

Limits to Federal Power

Judge Vinson's ruling, as Judge Hudson's before him, represents a return to the original Constitution of limited enumerated powers delegated by the people to the federal government. Vinson opens his decision quoting James Madison in the Federalist Papers explaining, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite," noting further that "the Tenth Amendment reaffirmed that relationship."

Vinson goes on to explain that the reason for that is to "ensure protection of our fundamental liberties" and "reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse." He goes on to quote the ultimate explanation again from James Madison in The Federalist Papers:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The enumerated power claimed by Congress for Obamacare was the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." Trade among the states was mentioned so Congress would have the power to eliminate the protectionist trade restrictions and barriers that had been erected among the states against trade with each other. Eliminating those protectionist trade barriers is a fundamental reason for the long term, world leading prosperity of America. This is the original reason for the Commerce Clause, not to allow abominations like Obamacare.

But this was dramatically changed during the New Deal to allow Congress to affirmatively regulate interstate commerce based on the language of the Commerce Clause, and neither Judge Vinson nor Judge Hudson challenged that change. But more recent Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed that there are still limits to Congress's power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Both Judge Vinson and Judge Hudson have now ruled that the individual mandate in Obamacare exceeds those limits.

Obamacare's individual mandate requires all individuals without employer-provided health insurance to buy insurance with all the politically correct and expensive coverage the government dictates they must buy. But as Judge Vinson noted, " (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States." Every prior regulation upheld as constitutional under the Commerce Clause involved some activity that could be construed as participation in interstate commerce. But failure to buy health insurance involves no such activity, and no participation in interstate commerce at all.

As a result, Judge Vinson concluded:

It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting…that compelling the actual transaction is itself commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce…it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.

Then in words that will be memorialized on future Tea Party walls, Vinson wrote:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Judge Vinson consequently ruled, "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 for it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power."

Page: 1 2 3 >

Letter to the Editor

Robbins Mitchell| 2.2.11 @ 6:19AM

All very well and good....but given what a renegade Barokeydoke is and considering his hard core 3rd world statist belief system,the likelihood is that HHS et al will continue to act as if Judge Vinson and his ruling don't exist and will flaut the ruling until threatened with a Federal court contempt citation..these people are utterly predictable

Tomas| 2.2.11 @ 9:44AM

Contempt of court will certainly be treated with contempt by Obama and his administration. The Vision of The Anointed.

There are sure to be other state court rulings on Obamacare, declaring its unconstitutionality. Some of them will be very precise, as is Vinton's. Others will leave more "wiggle room," as does Hudson's.

Thus the problem when this issue goes before the Supreme Court. With an abundance of rulings to choose from, the administration will pick the least precise, the most likely to be overturned, to bring before the high court. Under these circumstances, the probability is high that State rulings will be overturned.

The fight is long from over, and the road back is strewn with the worst of intentions....

Vigilance is called for. And no negativity.

As Dan Rather so confusingly put it at the close of every CBS newscast in the 80s: "Courage."

tj| 2.2.11 @ 2:11PM

Yah Thomas you would like to think that would'nt you!

oldfart| 2.2.11 @ 6:29AM

I agree with Mitchell, Obama could decide to ignore Judge Vinson's rulling and anything the Congress does, and order HHS to move forward. After all the Justice Department is run by Obama lackeys - and seem to ignore any commitment to the Consistution - so where is the enforcement?

Consertive View| 2.2.11 @ 8:15AM

I believe, if memory serves, that Andrew Jackson had problems with the Court during his presidency. He once remarked, when going ahead with what the Court deemed unconstitutional, "How many battalions does the Supreme Court have?" For this a cry went out for his impeachment. It never happened. In much the same sense I fear that Obama is asking the same question, and expecting the same result.

It seems to me a fundamental weakness of our Government that so major a political decision, with such far reaching implications can ultimately be left to a single individual. Perhaps it is time to look seriously at some means for the States themselves to over-ride the decisions of the Court.

I have a "gut feeling" that SCOTUS will untimately decide that ObambCare must be struck down. I believe this for several reasons, not the least of which is that the Court may well fear that if they do not limit the power of the federal government on their own, the States will enact some amendments to the Constitution that would limit the power of the Court, thus putting the Courts power into the hands of the States. For SCOTUS this would be a nightmare. Such an idea must be in the back of the mind of each and every Justice of SCOTUS.

So where is the enforcement? I submit that ultimately it will reside in the States if the Court swings in favor of ObamaCare. Gosh, I hope I am wrong in all of this, for if the Court gives ultimate power to the Federal Government what will result is political chaos.

oldfart| 2.2.11 @ 9:17AM

Teddy Roosevelt did the same thing. Congress would not appropriate the funds to sail the US Navy around the world. So Teddy ordered the fleet so out to sea, they could return to the West Coast to refuel. Then he asked Congress - what are you going to do now? Congress blinked and appropriated the funds.

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 1:00PM

I agree about the states needing to assert themselves against the ever-expanding Feds. I was diverted by a recent story of a County designating its sheriffs above all other law enforcement, including the FBI.

What we need is for more states to threaten secession. The national guards are controlled by the governors and, from what I understand, there would be very few army officers willing to order their troops against the national guards - which, since the Civil War, is now illegal anyway.

What prevents them is the Feds power to withhold Federal aid. Many states, just like individuals, have become addicted to the narcotic of Federal money.

Personally, I've been wondering if we wouldn't be better off seeing the country divide into at least three regions. The red-blue division between the heartland and the two coasts seems to grow ever more distinct.

Pauly D| 2.2.11 @ 1:25PM

Actually, Andrew Jackson said:

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it! "

In reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia.

RWinks| 2.2.11 @ 2:00PM

It was Napoleon who said, (When the Vatican objected to his takeover of Italy) "How many battalions has the Pope?"

Consertive Vieq| 2.2.11 @ 3:28PM

I sit abashed and corrected.

BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 2:55AM

I believe Jackson said something to the effect of let's see the court enforce it (the ruling in question).

sam goodman| 2.2.11 @ 3:01PM

I suspect you have confused Andrew Jackson who said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ... Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they'll go." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
with a statement of Joseph Stalin "How many battalions does the Pope have?"
http://www.insidecatholic.com/.....-html.html

As far as I know President Jackson never faced impeachment it is probably President Andrew Johnson who followed Lincoln who you are thinking of and it had nothing to do with conflict with the supreme court.

ThePowerPickle| 2.2.11 @ 2:14PM

I don't believe he would defy the courts. In Jackson's and TR's days, you could get away with things like that politically. It's next to impossible to do that kind of stuff nowadays. Plus, the popular outcry would bury him.

If you think about it, the SCOTUS killing Obamacare would probably be a blessing in disguise. Just as losing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker has freed Obama up enormously to do things like the tax-cut deal. If the SCOTUS killed Obamacare, Obama has plenty of political cover to say, "well, Congress really screwed that law up, eh? Now let's talk 'single-payer system'..."

reheiler| 2.2.11 @ 3:08PM

You might be right about Obama's room to maneuver and blame Congress, but for a couple of things:
1) In an attempt to counter his obvious lack of serious qualifications, Obama's acolytes used his position as a "lecturer" to sell Obama as a Constitutional scholar.
2) He signed the damned thing. You remember: in the words of his crass VP, it was a big effin deal.
3) Much of the bill's contents (including the individual mandate) was the result of the contortions necessary to assuage the public's entirely justified fear of the government takeover of healthcare that is synonymous with the phrase "single payer." Hillary tried that nonsense in 1993.
No, Pickle, if the SCOTUS strikes down the law, it's game, set, match.

PaulD| 2.2.11 @ 6:36AM

oldfart: "so where is the enforcement?" I would hope impeachment would swiftly follow.

oldfart| 2.2.11 @ 6:41AM

The Senate in the hands of Harry? With Obama being our first President of color? There are not enough 'lobes' (to use a Star Trke term) in the entire Congress for that to happen. LOL

Al Adab| 2.2.11 @ 11:49AM

President Biden is probably a worse choice than the one (One) we have.

Harry reid should note however, that his state is one of those suing to end Obamacare. Governors and Legislatures need to make it known to their Senators that votes should support the States positions.

reheiler| 2.2.11 @ 3:12PM

The next time Harry Reid has to run for re-election, he will be approaching 78 years old. I doubt he gives a damn what his constituents, or other political figures in Nevada, think.

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:11PM

This may come across as totally improbable and the "Mother of all Conspiracy Theories", but; is it possible that the Democratic party is hoping the Court kills barrycare? Because, it may be the only way out for the dems.

Barry is stadily destroying the democratic party; and the takeover of the party by its most radical elements has continually alienated an electorate that is suffering every day from the economically bankrupt theories and practices of the old Keynsians that made up the dems economic policy. Maybe the only way out is to impeach barry, or possibly have him get lung cancer. After all, he smokes like a chimney. (Which is some perverted twist on the old "Pot(us) calling the kettle black" story.

Barry is steadily killing the country. The dems are eventually going to see that their radical base that supports barry and his commie dreams is shrinking by the day. (Don't quote polls to me. NOBODY can admit being against him without being labeled a racist! So much for freedom of speech.) Before he kills the party forever, they'd throw him under the bus in a heartbeat; making sure to praise him all the way.

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 5:41PM

He's not a Keynesian! He was born in Hawaii for god's sake. You birthers have really gone too far this time.

Yep that was a parody of some actual libtards.

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 7:33PM

The problem is that you are so far above the usual lib that they have no idea what you said..or meant!

Carol | 2.2.11 @ 6:42AM

According to one of Obama's mouthpieces yesterday, they will proceed with implementation.

That enough should get Obama a contempt of court subpeona.

But just like Issa isn't getting any information that he requested from Uncle Janet, Obama will refuse to obey any court orders.

That's how Communists operate.

They don't follow no stinkin' laws.

oldfart| 2.2.11 @ 6:46AM

Do you know the line from Blazing Saddles? "We don't need no stinkin' badges!" They (who ever is whispering in Obama's ear) will do what ever they want.

Robbins Mitchell| 2.2.11 @ 7:10AM

That line was originally uttered in "Treasure of Sierra Madre"...Mel Brooks just chose to use it in "Blazing Saddle" because it is so unique and memorable

LillithMc| 2.2.11 @ 11:40AM

I don't need no stinking vouchers.

East Texas Rancher| 2.2.11 @ 9:06AM

Remember, he rules, he doesn't govern. He will stay in power and do just as he pleases. Just wait and see. He will never step down, even if defeated.

WRTolkas| 2.2.11 @ 12:54PM

Dear East Texas Rancher,

And that, my friend, is why we have State Militias and a Military sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And the 2nd Amendment doesn't hurt. With a Republican House and the possibility of a Republican Senate on the horizon - I'd like to see Barry try. I'd love to see that.

Arch| 2.2.11 @ 7:15AM

Great analysis.

There is a third option open to the President; sign the repeal of ObamaCare and encourage Congress to draft and enact a bipartisan replacement bill. It would get Obama reelected and stop the legislative train wreck scheduled for 6 November 2012. It would also be the perfect point on which to pivot.

Of course, this will not happen for three reasons. First, ObamaCare is not about healthcare; it's about control and income distribution. Second, the Republicans can and will kill ObamaCare by defunding it in the House. Finally, and most importantly, Obama would be forced to admit he had made a mistake, something that is quite impossible.

Ted| 2.2.11 @ 9:44AM

Arch,

This is an interesting idea. It seems unlikely that the President will pivot, however.

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 5:53PM

as others have said, I can't see him signing the repeal bill. he can't torpedo his base like that and he won't swing any moderates or independants back to his camp if he repeals an unconstitutional bill he signed before the SCOTUS overturns it. The GOP can get him for signing the mess into law and then get him for adding his signature to the repeal.

Can Mr. Incompetant Obama complain that he got rolled by Nancy Pelosi and Hary Reid and did not realize what a turd he signed? Wow that's a good argument to make on the campaign trail--not!

Everything he does just basically reinforces the image of the dufus unqualified Barry we have all grown to love is not a leader. He does not deserve the job and has not earned it.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.11 @ 7:23AM

I keep hearing people say that "We have to offer something different". This author says that "In order to get Kennedy's vote, he needs to be shown that Soviet Style Obamacare can still be achieved, some other way".
But, I thought that the WHOLE LAW is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Isn't that the whole purpose of the Supreme Court? To determine the Constitutionality of things? So, why do we have to wheel and deal with Kennedy?
And while we're at it....How can these other PUKE LIBERALS, on the Court, see the same words in the Constitution as the other Justices, and come up with the EXACT OPPOSITE interpretation?
How can any Student of the Constitution, not know, that this is a Document of NEGATIVE RIGHTS, when it comes to the Federal Government? They have to know the words of JAMES MADISON. They have to know what he said about the POWERS of the Federal Government.
"The powers of the Federal government are FEW, and WELL DEFINED. They are in the first 9 Amendments of The BILL OF RIGHTS."
These things are not SECRETS. Anyone who can READ, knows these things.
We have got to get back to where we came from.
We are the United states of America.
So, why do we look more like VENEZUELA, every day?

VBMax| 2.2.11 @ 9:37AM

"How can these other PUKE LIBERALS, on the Court, see the same words in the Constitution as the other Justices, and come up with the EXACT OPPOSITE interpretation?"

Because they are blinded by ideology and therefore incapable of critical analysis.

da monk| 2.2.11 @ 5:21PM

Old Fart: And what color is that? Keep in mind, he's bi-racial. Do still have your KKK uniform?

gazinya| 2.2.11 @ 10:24PM

And this is the tragedy of it all. The founders wrote extensively on what to look for in politics of tyranny but did not think that justices would be able to obfiscate the law. The SCOTUS has used the most tyrannical means to change the Constitution without changing a single word. That broom rider Ginsburg 'expanded' the fifth amendment to steal private property rights. Sotomoyer swore in her confirmation that she was a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment concerning gun rights then voted against it. I would like the Congress, when it regains control, to haul these Lucifarians in and ask them to explain themselves using ONLY the Constitution.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.11 @ 8:04AM

26 States joined the suit against Obamacare in Florida. Seven additional States could make an ammendment.
I think that reality encouraged the Florida judge to do the right thing.

Consertive View| 2.2.11 @ 8:33AM

Let us hope and pray that it will encourage the Supreme Court to do the same, for exactly the same reason. And if not, let us find those seven additional states.

Consertive View| 2.2.11 @ 8:34AM

QUICKLY!

Ted| 2.2.11 @ 9:46AM

Ken,

Let us also not forget the separate Virginia suit. 27 states... You only need 6 more (or seven if one accepts that 33.33 states must round to 34).

Al Adab| 2.2.11 @ 10:37AM

Ken,
That is exactly the position the Governors and Legislatures of the 27 states involved should take. They need to demand in no uncertain terms, that their Senators vote to maintain the position of the states regarding Obamacare. Fifty-four Senators is the majority. They additionally need to confer with their fellows and find the other handful of states to make for 33. That is indeed a revolt of the states and that is a serious matter.

We cannot rely on a politicized, ideologic Supreme Court to uphold our Liberty. Kagan should recuse but likely will not and the decision will be 5-4 upholding the mandate. The States need to make it clear that whatever the outcome, they will not comply. The opt out bills pending represent a good path.

gazinya| 2.2.11 @ 10:28PM

Well there was that very line in the original Constitution that Senators would be appointed by the soverign states to represent the wishes of that state. Then Woodrow Wilson pushed the 17th amendment that changed it to a popular vote for senators. So much law has changed in 100 years and nobody is even aware of it. Sad really.

reheiler| 2.2.11 @ 3:16PM

Actually, it takes three quarters of state legislatures to pass a Constitutional amendment. Therefore, 12 additional states would be required.

Al Adab| 2.2.11 @ 4:25PM

Article V controls. Two-thirds may propose either a convention or amendments. It does take 3/4 to ratify. Thanks for the post. I hope this clarifies the current dynamic.

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:16PM

Great point, Ken,
We need to make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the 52 senators from those 26 states will lose their seats unless they vote for repeal. I haven't done the analysis, but I'll bet at least 5 or 10 of them are up in 2012 and would kinda like to keep their cushy jobs.

I also agree that the states need to move toward secession unless and until the feds back off and kill this blatant power grab. Every state governor has the power to call out his or her own national guard.... As granny said; "...jest thinkin' is all."

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:43PM

My error: 54 senators from 27 states, which is much better.

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:34PM

you basically are saying it's ok to start a civil war over trying to insure our fellow uninsured americans by taking a cut of your pay. that's a bad move considering we're a 21st century superpower.

put the passion pen down, mr. no merit.

national guard vs. army/navy/air force. good luck with that. my money's on...well, you know...the steelers! i'm telling you, i'm going to be on this blog until i die - we'll see how well your wishes pan out =]

love you, grumpy crazy war mongerer.

jolizoom| 2.3.11 @ 1:36AM

Here's your analysis: Senators up for reelection in 2012, with lousy constitutional scores from ACU and NAFI

Name
Gillibrand, Kirsten E. NY
Whitehouse, Sheldon RI
Cardin, Benjamin L. MD
Akaka, Daniel K. HI
Menendez, Robert NJ
Brown, Sherrod OH
Feinstein, Dianne CA
Stabenow, Debbie MI
Casey, Robert P., Jr. PA
Bingaman, Jeff NM
Carper, Thomas R. DE
Kohl, Herb WI
Lieberman, Joseph I. CT
Nelson, Bill FL
Klobuchar, Amy MN
Tester, Jon MT
Conrad, Kent ND
Webb, Jim VA
Cantwell, Maria WA
Sanders, Bernard VT
McCaskill, Claire MO
Nelson, Ben NE
Snowe, Olympia J. ME
Lugar, Richard G. IN
Brown, Scott P. MA

martin j smith| 2.2.11 @ 8:16AM

Obama will not accept a defeat of any kind. The question in my mind at what point will his refusal to accept the LAW and the Constitution-at what point will it be apparent that IMPEACHMENT is the necessary step. Unless he resigns--which I doubt he would do. I do not see any sign that Obama wil recognize that the majority of American voters oppose his agenda. If he continues to go down the road of circumventing law and Constitution there WILL BE CALLS OR HIS IMPEACHMENT.
As for the Supreme Court--most likely it will be a 5-4 . One more observation: This decision will show for anyone who is not aware just how POLITICAL OUR JUDGES REALLY ARE.

Deborah D| 2.2.11 @ 8:20AM

Excellent analysis, Mr. Ferrara. This was such wonderful news. I have been patting all of America, and especially policy folks like you, on the back the past couple of days. The Tea Partiers have folks like you to thank for keeping them informed of the issues that so greatly affect this country -- doubly so since Obamacrats took over. We're not done yet, obviously, but this is a real feather in many caps. Take a moment, all, and be proud of the USA!

Appleby| 2.2.11 @ 8:20AM

Socialism: a train populated solely by freeloaders, stopped in the desert, with no engineer.

ObamaCare as described here fits that description perfectly.

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:35PM

good opinion. now pay more taxes. you will. hi =]

Mimi| 2.2.11 @ 8:21AM

Peter...Thanks again! Great article!
History will record these times...one hundred to two hundred years from now , how America veered off its course of LIBERTY, in the early part of the 21st Century.
The major players will go down in infamy...GOOD and BAD ! We the "Sons and Daughters of Liberty", The many great writers and Authors, The TEA Party,.....The vigor and energy to cherishfor sometime and maintain FREEDOM will shine fo future Americans and a lesson to them to always be on guard.
The Dem's have known for some time they are on the WRONG track. In 2008 they were giddy and DRUNK with POWER.
The latest ruling by Judge Vinson and the recent one by Henry Hudson are both so well written, they have "ROMANCED THE AMERICAN HEART".....Two grand historical documents !!
Whoa be the DEM'S of this day....You have been brought down and humiliated in your quest for CONTROL AND POWER. To elected Dem Senators...History is now on record and noting your moves. Will you join with the CRY'S for liberty or maintain your folly on the wrong side of HISTORY, and turn from the FOOLS laid NAKED.

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:41PM

Ah, the King James Bible equated with the sacred Constitution. I assume you have health insurance and are in good health by the Grace of God. If not, then, in this Social Darwinist nation, you deserve the consequences.

john dubose| 2.2.11 @ 8:39AM

Remember the Boxer rebelion by the Chinese in the very early 20th century. The good old Brits had the idea that they could COMPEL THE LOCAL CHINESE TO BUY OPIUM. Obamacare arises from that same mindset. In the short term, the Brits more modern military prevailed. But eventually the Chinese kicked them out of their country. We can not do that to Obama and his gang, but we can kick them out of office.

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:36PM

ok, this is a legit post. well said. all this talk of revolution and 2nd amendment remedies is dumb fantasy stuff.

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 2.2.11 @ 8:49AM

Mr. Ferrara, many thanks for all of your work and for this article.

Obama's and Congress' error is not our strength. It has merely tripped the vampire. I agree with you completely on the need for repeal.

Now that the vampire is temporarily down, we must drive a Congressional stake through its ever lovin' heart. Even if the Supremes support Hudson and Vinson, we must press Congress to repeal Obama care anyway - entirely repeal - and to take it a step further: Congress must act to prevent further legislation of this sort.

Dantesque| 2.2.11 @ 9:34AM

The crucial question is whether Kagan will recuse herself. I bet not.

Ted| 2.2.11 @ 9:58AM

Kagan's recusal, or lack thereof, will provide a great deal of insight into whether the final Supreme Court decision is based in politics or based in the Constitution.

She would most certainly need to recuse herself, but I am aware of no mechnism compelling her to recuse herself. I will leave the question for the legal eagles here.

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 12:32PM

Very little chance of Kagan recusing herself. First, she's human. Second, she's a feminist. Third, she's a liberal.

Need I offer any other reasons?

darcy| 2.2.11 @ 6:58PM

The matter is simply this: Should Kagan refuse to recuse herself, the judgment of the court (finding in favor of the individual mandate) will be perceived by objective viewers as illegitimate.

Then we would know of a certain that we have indeed entered into totalitarian waters. There would ensue massive armed resistance, following our Boston forerunners, as a show that Americans will NOT be compelled into ANY activity that reeks of coercion.

The 111th Congress shoved a giant f*^k you finger in the face of the majority of Americans, and said, "Eat s*&T and like it, or else." Now Americans are saying, as decently, firmly, and resolutely as they know how: NO, not while we have breath. Not while we have breath.

And by the by, to Mr. Ferrara: Your suggestions for what the Feds should do to "improve" our health care system smack of central-government tinkering around the edges. Citizens should be required to pay for health care like they pay for gasoline or hotel rooms -- no middle-man, and if the tab is excessive, put the balance on the installment plan or appeal to PRIVATE charitable organizations to negotiate costs with providers.

As long as this country depends on third parties -- insurance companies, for example, as with employer-sponsored medical coverage -- the longer will we be permitting a high-cost system to prevail. As long as the public uses the health care system as if it were free -- as it tends to do when they depend on insurance to pick up 80% of the tab, they will never, never, ever question whether or not the doctor or other care provider is charging too much, performing too many tests, is competively priced with the office down the street, etc. The ONLY WAY TO BRING DOWN COSTS is for the buyer of health care to pay OUT OF POCKET.

The insurance industry has been both a major beneficiary and chief cause of escalating health care costs, over and above those costs that are associated with longer life spans and medical technology innovations.

Pay your way medical care is the ONLY way to drive costs down. Tort Reform -- MAJOR TORT REFORM -- would help too!!!!!!!!!!

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 7:38PM

We all better start hammering on the GOP to bring up the issue of Kagan's obvious conflict of interest and DEMAND that she recuse herself. If she doesn't, they need to make that into such a huge issue that she will be very constrained in her actions. She needs to be reminded that even supreme court judges are subject to recall and removal.

George S| 2.2.11 @ 9:45AM

Don't worry about pleasing Kennedy with the argument that health care access and provisions are inherently unconstitutional. That can easily be be countered with the 200 plus waivers issued to companies to disobey the law to have the ability continue to provide health care coverage to the lower income workers they employ. I think that may even persuade a liberal or two on the Court to uphold repeal.

The way I think it will finally play out at SCOTUS is that the mandate will be upheld to be unconstitutional but not the whole bill... which is okay because the Court will send it back to Congress (as they usually do) to work out. This is something the Democrats would dread arguing as we get close to the 2012 elections.

The only way Obama salvages this is if he gets to replace either of the four real Justices. That, or disobey the law. What if he does? Well, he already started the dry run to the Constitutional mechanisms in place that force compliance by refusing to submit proof of birth (he is testing, not hiding). Then he appointed czars. Then broke long standing contract law to absorb GM to bail out union pensions from looming bankruptcy. Then, the EPA was ordered to engage CO2 regulations. Then, he disregarded a Federal judge on the drilling moratorium. What were the consequences of these actions? Are they a precursor for Mu-Barak refusing to stand for reelection? Two years ago, the hip, cool Obama got away with it. Question is -- does the punk still feel lucky?

Mimi| 2.2.11 @ 12:20PM

George S....Does the "punk still feel lucky"?
He lost his LUCK on Nov.2, 2010...Yup ran totally out of it....Right now what you see is some-one totally...frozen...Not knowing what way to GO...Pathetic to watch!!

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:22PM

Barry will push and push until the country breaks out in violence and blood flows. Then he'll order the national guards to be federalized. But, not one guardsman or sheriff or state police officer I know has ever stated that he/she would fire on their own friends and families to keep a power hungry socialist dictator wannabe in power. Mr barry had better very careful; the sands are shifting around his feet; and they were never as solid as his giddy morons in the media proclaimed them in 2008. Only a true fool believes his own press clippings.

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:39PM

there you go again, another garbage post on blood, violence, etc. now you look like the 14 year old with the first person shooter game.

GARBAGE.

Len| 2.2.11 @ 9:55AM

Mr. Ferrara I was doing okay with this article until you said that the state governments should steal from people and give to others.

Does it really matter if it is the federal government violating rights as opposed to the states. Yes, I know states are considered to be for the people, and their constitutions reflect this, but really theft is theft, and when government at any level practices injustice and uses coercion to wrest away the fruits of people's labor then that government needs to be changed.

In truth the poor will be better provided for when the people are freer. They will have more wealth, their spirits will be lightened from not being burdened from the government, and this will result in more charity, even charity in arranging private insurance pools.

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 12:37PM

Correct. I see very few distinctions between Ferrara's state solution and Obamacare.

If we don't return to the basic capitalistic principles of supply and demand, wages for work, we will never get out of this.

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:42PM

keynesian today, capitalism tomorrow. go read the economist - then you'll know what i mean.

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:36PM

Dream on.

Lawrence in New York| 2.2.11 @ 9:56AM

Another scenario. The politics of this have killed Obamacare. No one will revive it now. Thus our political power has killed it. And this political power is our only real protection.

Obama could accept defeat, and re-write the law to achieve the same thing the Individual Mandate does by funding the States directly to administer the program if the States have X% of their population enrolled in health care. Thus the "Mandate" transfers to the States who are not limited by a Commerce Claus. No of course this would be voluntary and some States will opt out. By so what? For progressives the Camels Nose, Head and Neck will be in the tent.

mbd| 2.2.11 @ 10:37AM

The appellate strategy for the Obama administration may depend on whether Kagan is likely to recuse herself. In the event that she did, then Kennedy's vote would be irrelevant in an appeal of Vinson's or Hudson's rulings (the only ones they could appeal). On the other hand, if the rulings of Vinson or Hudson go to the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits, respectively, and if either is reversed, then the review of that decision (brought to the Supreme Court by the Plaintiffs rather than the administration) would make Kennedy's vote crucial if Kagan were to recuse herself: if Kagan recuses, the Court will be left with eight members and an equally divided decision results in the upholding of the lower court order; thus an appeal of Vinson's ruling to the Supreme Court without review by the Eleventh would be upheld by a 4-4 vote (assuming that Kennedy votes with the liberal bloc); on the other hand, a 4-4 vote of a ruling by the Eleventh overturning Vinson's order would also be upheld by a potential 4-4 vote. Only in the latter case would Kennedy's vote be decisive.

Mimi| 2.2.11 @ 12:28PM

I'm not so sure the Supreme Court won't give a UNANIMOUS decision on this... It will be interesting...The 2 latter lower courts arguments were excellent....2 works of perfection. My only wish is that it be soon...very soon. This monster is holding up the whole ECONOMY !!!

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 12:40PM

Careful what you wish for. Too soon and Obama gets re-elected. Look at his jump in polls this year with just the modest signs of recovery we've had so far. I'll gladly dig for scraps to put on the table for another year if it means Obama gets the boot.

CopyKatnj| 2.2.11 @ 2:15PM

Although I agree with your sentiment I disagree with your reasoning for an early decision. I suggest we stop playing political chess and focus on getting the legal decision then vet a good conservative candidate for 2012 to win the Presidency.

Barry Goldwater is dead.

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:45PM

The Dixiecrats have returned. in force under the banner of the Tea Partiers. Are there any members of the American Independent Party (Wallace/Lemay 1969/72) reading this. Appointing Federal Judges is a presidential perogative. This Judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 7:41PM

Barry's jump was a result of the people's collective guilt over the shootings in Tucson. As soon as he goes back to his socialist agenda his poll numbers will resume their free fall. He walks like a duck, he talks like a duck...should I continue? If the GOP has ANY brains or courage they will continue to hammer him and reid. They simply can't take it without giving us a "Kodak Moment" sooner or later.

Impeach Don't Wait| 2.2.11 @ 4:06PM

"I'm not so sure the Supreme Court won't give a UNANIMOUS decision on this... "

My thought exactly. I'm no scholar, so forgive me if I'm imprecise and/or grossly uninformed... But here's what I've been thinking: The lower court arguments were so firmly established in constitutionality and accepted understanding of the limits of the Commerce Clause, etc. Those arguments would be hard to refute convincingly. Any attempt to do so would appear at best purely partisan and at worst incompetent. I'd hate to be the Supreme Court justice who even tries :). Judge Vinson was very wise, up to the point of saying essentially that the Supreme Court's accepting Obamacare is tantamount to saying "We now affirm that the federal government can do anything it darn well pleases." Such a Supreme Court thereby destroys its reason for being. What check and balance can it then provide in these matters? If it plays out this way, I wouldn't be surprised if the result is 7 to 2 (or better) to ditch Obamacare as written. Let's hope. I enjoy the discussions. I'm curious... As an exercise: All you legal scholars out there: Which of you can convincingly defeat the arguments of Judge Vinson? What's a Supreme Court justice likely to argue that would pass constitutional muster? Anybody want to try? I'd like to know what we'd be up against. Thanks.

mbd| 2.2.11 @ 4:51PM

And what were your thoughts as to the unanimity of the ruling by the Court on the Second Amendment issues before the actual decisions issued in Heller and McDonald? Perhaps you also thought that the issue was so clear - and the opinion of the Court os Appeals for the D of C was so brilliant - that no Supreme Justice could disagree with it? Wake up to the real world of constitutional interpretation. ( They were both won by the narrowest of margins)

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:46PM

nice!

George S| 2.2.11 @ 5:40PM

Leaving aside the blind ideology of the leftist Justices such as Kagan and Sotomayor who will see a Commerce Clause excuse for anything, there is only one argument that I can think of that may remotely sway the left leaning Justice Kennedy:

Wickard v Filburn conjoined with a newly created "Right to Health Care" (a la Right to Privacy).

From Wickard we get a correct ruling that was worded poorly. Mr. Filburn was sanctioned for using wheat that he grew for personal consumption rather than for market. The law, however, proscribed specifically how to store or handle excess wheat and personal use was NOT one of them. Therefore, Filburn ran afoul of the law. SCOTUS ruled that Congress was petitioned to regulate wheat by farmers in an attempt to keep prices high. Congress then has the commerce clause power to regulate what they subsidize. Moreover, they also could write how to dispose of excess wheat within the law. SCOTUS should have left it at that -- "Sorry Filburn, you have to dispose the excess wheat in the manner prescribed by regulation and you didn't" -- but instead played into the government's assertion that Filburn was affecting commerce by not obeying the law, hence the ruling that personal consumption within state lines and on private property was within the purview of the commerce clause (ouch). Therefore, a precedence was set that extends commerce to non-participation (however tenuously is irrelevant; activists feed off of the slightest thread).

Today, rising health care cost "threaten' to
"disenfranchise" the [women/children/minorites] thus denying them a basic "human right" recognized by "enlightened societies" all over the world. (The Obamas will shovel those buzz words). Thus, Congress acted to keep costs reasonable so that everyone can have access. In order for the intention of Congress to be practicably executed, it is imperative that everyone purchase insurance the same way we are compelled to purchase government services such as schools and a military -- through a common pool of taxes. Those who do not participate (tax cheats, etc.) jeopardize our foundation of ordered liberty and can therefore be punished for non participation in surrendering a portion of their private property.

A national defense (military) is essential to protecting our liberty by protecting life against invaders -- hence we give government the power to create a military to augment our individual right to self-defense of life, liberty and property. And it does so without each of us realizing its actual costs. Is not disease just as lethal as an enemy bomber? But we cannot force people to build defenses against bombers, but we pay them to do so through taxes. Hence a Right to Health Care can exist cheaply without forcing others to provide it as long as we pay together.

Therefore we can tie this with Filburn and say that non-participation jeopardizes a fundamental human right. But unlike Filburn, wheat is not a basic essential as there are other sources of nourishment. The Court cannot relegate medical care to an importance lower than wheat.

It's a streeeeetch (with a HUGE false premise to boot) but you never know with liberals.

somnolence| 2.2.11 @ 10:41AM

I wouldn't be too sure that it will ever be heard before SCOTUS. The citing of the severability clause pretty well killed the whole negligent, liberal argument. That's what happens when the sorry bunch that crafted the bill didn't bother to read or proofread the thousands of pages. The majority of states will speak with a resounding "No", and the remaining Dems in the Senate will have their names out for all to see and won't be able to hide.

Spike| 2.2.11 @ 10:49AM

All,

You make the mistake of thinking that this is a setback for Obama.

For a moment, presume that Obama is SMARTER than all of us. As a Constitutional Professor, do you not think that Obama knew "this play" was forthcoming? Let's presume that this was part of his plan all along.

Now what?

Spike

mbd| 2.2.11 @ 11:00AM

You are being overly generous in terming him a 'Constitutional Professor', He was a part-time lecturer and, if I recall correctly, it was in the field of civil rights law - like most law school lecturers, he covered a very narrow area of the law.

Mimi| 2.2.11 @ 12:30PM

SPIKE....Your DREAMING ....RIGHT????

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 12:43PM

I think Spike was writing with a somewhat sarcastic tone. Additionally, I think he's implying that Obama may have welcomed a run-in with the SCOTUS in order to assert even greater Executive control. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I wouldn't put it past him either.

W| 2.2.11 @ 12:51PM

Spike, have you attended law school? if you did you would have a different opinion on law professors.

Paul from SA| 2.2.11 @ 10:58AM

Great article.

Medicaid should be delegated to the states, completely, along with the rest of welfare and other transfer payments. It's a state responsibility.

Storm-n| 2.2.11 @ 11:05AM

I would suggest three things: First, permitting govt health care programs to require bids on pharmaceuticals. Second, I would suggest that pharmaceuticals should shift any R&D cost to Medicare programs, if it is a cost, then we shouldn't be alone in footing the bill. Finally, I would suggest that pharmaceutical advertising be reviewed for absolute accuracy.

Henry Miller| 2.2.11 @ 11:40AM

Excellent analysis of Judge Vinson's ruling and the probable consequences of it, but I take issue with the author's proposed alternatives to Obamacare, taxpayer subsidised Medicaid block-grants and taxpayer subsidised risk pools. Both merely extend the already-too-expensive entitlements that already take too much in taxes from working Americans.

Subsidising the health care of the "poor" is philosophically indistinguishable from subsidising home-ownership, which is precisely what brought on the financial catastrophe of two years ago and from which we have yet to recover. As hard-hearted as it sounds, no society can long support any significant proportion of its population that does not support themselves, and attempting to do so inevitably results in an economic collapse that ultimately causes more harm than the good that was sought.

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:35PM

So, this nation is based on Social Darwinism. What happens when you lose your job and can't find another.

Doug| 2.2.11 @ 7:11PM

Run for the Senate, and then the presidency?

John Carnal| 2.2.11 @ 11:48AM

I have but one comment: "Mr. President, show us your papers!"

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:52PM

garbage.

Uninsured and not paying| 2.2.11 @ 12:01PM

Thank you again, Judge, for your finding. I may not need to go to jail after all.

JST| 2.2.11 @ 12:06PM

Is violating a Federal Court contempt citation a high crime or a misdemeanor or both?

howard lohmuller| 2.2.11 @ 12:12PM

Obama has so far been able to avoid revealing his Socialist intentions for the Country to much of the electorate. He has engineered his social plans from the bottom up, that is like a community organizer would.
Now that district courts have ruled Obamacare unconstitutional, and the probability being that the Supreme Court will too, Obama may have to face the choice of obeying the Court or obstructing it. If he obstructs, then
that would be his first top down decision proving clearly that he has a Socialist agenda and the Constitution be damned.

If this scenario comes to pass, it would be the Conservatives responsibility to point out that Obamacare is really not about health care. Rather it is about more government control of the citizenry. The mainstream media will not explain the obfuscation that Obama engages in to hide his real agenda.

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:33PM

Ah, the joys of reading the slurs of painting Obama a Socialist which is equated to a liberal which is equated to a communist.

The last TRUE conservative was Barry Goldwater. How many of you remember him?
How many of you are willing to return the US to its traditional isolationism and cut military spending ? The Bible and Constitution are not synonyms nor did Jesus speak the language of the King James Bible.

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 6:37PM

jj hein is......what? A shit stirrer with no real point?

Okay JJ,

Single Payer Healthcare = Socialism everywhere else in the world. If I support the collective with my taxes and I have to depend on the collective for a good or service that is socialism and that is what The Kenyan is pining for.

Social Security is by far our nations foremost experiment with socialism and it has been morphed and bastardized by our liberal congress. It's been a Democrat Party bribe to the masses to vote for them for 60 years. you can't escape the liberalism = socialism = communism = national socialism noose anymore than Saddam Hussein could. If the rope fits wear it.

Wayne | 2.2.11 @ 12:39PM

I am so dimwitted, that I am still trying to figure out how the FDA and the prescription requirement is not a violation of the commerce clause. I think it goes back to Teddy Roosevelt.

axbucxdu| 2.2.11 @ 12:51PM

Where does the USG obtain the money for Medicaid? Encouraging more largesse from the FED is not conservative.

W| 2.2.11 @ 12:54PM

We have to worry about Justice Kennedy on every important case. We got Kennedy because the Senate, led by Teddy Kennedy, savaged Judge Bork. And remember which "Republican" also attacked Judge Bork? Specter.

axbucxdu| 2.2.11 @ 1:05PM

We all know, or should know by now, that allowing all of these transfer payment programs to continue as they are is going to cause a currency crash.

Sorry, I just don't see how painting lipstick on this pig of a law for the benefit of Kennedy's vote is conservative either.

JoeSwiss| 2.2.11 @ 1:16PM

It's sick how the whole country has to worry about how it can kiss K's azz. We need changes, like term limits for justices, or States being able to declare a ruling unconstutional.

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:29PM

Why not bring back the Articles of Confederation?

Al Adab| 2.2.11 @ 5:29PM

Several times in our national history States have declared acts of Congress unconstitutional. The case on point here today may be the early issues over the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Both Jefferson and Madison weighed in on the issue. Jefferson held that the states as parties to the compact (constitution) could indeed nullify (his word) unconstitutional laws to prevent tyranny of Congressional majorities. Madison for his part said that the states could interpose (his word) themselves between the national government and the citizens to protect the rights of citizens against the national government.

The states are also able to instruct their Congressional delegations on expected votes and to work for repeal of laws. The Kentucy and Virginia resolutions were adopted by those states as essentially "opt out" acts concerning what the states felt (rightly so) were unconstitutional laws.

Several states and at least two by popular vote, have adopted "opt out" statutes regarding this law. We face in this regard a Constitutional issue of signifcant import and one not to be lightly passed over. This reaches to the very heart of our Federal system.

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:54PM

yeah, ok. garbage.

Stephen| 2.2.11 @ 1:37PM

While I'm not a fan of Obismal Care, I do have a deep and abiding respect for the legal system. Currently we have a mixed bag of rulings. A Federal Judge in MI (Steeh, IIRC) upheld the law. Now we have one who's struck it down. The bottom line is nothing changes until the SCOTUS rules. The idea that Obismal is somehow now in contempt is curious. That Ferrara ignore the MI (and others) ruling being his own integrity into question.

RWinks| 2.2.11 @ 2:37PM

The two cases upholding the law were based on different appeals than the two on which the law was overturned. The Virginia and Florida cases are more germane than the Michigan and California cases. The first three cases ruled upon affected only the individual mandate which would not go into effect until 2014. By continuing to enforce a law ruled null and void by the Federal courts, the Administration is technically in contempt of court until a superior court rules otherwise.

It comes as no surprise the Obama Administration is not obeying the law. They have openly violated more laws over the last two years than it is possible to recount. More than two BOOKS have been written already listing the violations.

ncatty| 2.2.11 @ 4:42PM

You are correct.

Doug| 2.2.11 @ 7:17PM

... waiting for jjhiney's snarky response ...

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:38PM

It doesn't matter if 50 courts uphold any law; once just ONE declares it unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional and no longer the law of the land. It's not a numbers game in this application. And, if barry's administration refuses to stop its implementation, he, and his fellow thugs, are legally guilty of the felony of Contemt of Court; an impeachable offense.

Judge Vinson has written his opinion so well that the SCOTUS has no choice. It is either unconstitutional or we are no longer a nation of laws. In that event, the supremes have no more legitimacy than a mob on a corner downtown. That's why the founding fathers wrote: "We are endowed by our Creator with Inalienable Rights". This 'line of legitimacy' then follows from the rights of the citizen to the assumption that the elections are valid and honest, thus anointing that legitimacy on our legally elected officials and the laws they pass UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

Unless this chain is followed, as it has NOT been in this regime, the government, and the rule of law THEY impose, is no longer legitimate and has no natural presumption of authority. The second the SCOTUS makes a 'political' decision, they lose THEIR legitimate basis in constitutional law.

Once that happens, or even is ASSUMED TO HAVE HAPPENED, the rule of law is gone and anything goes. Is that what barry and his fellow thugs want to have on THEIR tombstones; that they destroyed the rule of law, and the government of the United States of America?

I don't think he cares, nor do they. These people are dedicated to gaining power over the rest of us at any cost, even the destruction of the U.S. A. That's what radicals do.

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 6:44PM

well said. They can take away the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence for that matter, they are merely pieces of paper after all is said and done. What they can not take away is that God has given us these rights, they are inalienable--no rule of man can remove them from us.

This is why we have reason and thank God that our founders sought fit to include the Second Amendment up front.

sic semper tyrannis

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:57PM

do you have a photo of god giving us these rights? who said god gave us these rights? what about god's sympathy for other nations? does he only care about the US?

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 10:12PM

Nope no photo--God forgot to put film in the camera! Apparently Gilbert you are not an American. I feel sorry for you. You are full of garbage.

Here is some text that you would recognize if you were an American.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

If you have not read the American "Declaration of Indendence" from the rule of the King of England I suggest you do so. It's not full of garbage like you are.

gilbert| 2.3.11 @ 3:21AM

a big W for whatever to you mr grUmps. you're obviously stuck. yes, i paid attention in history class - like every other subject i mastered before high school (math was the only one that got harder and more fun - i'm what you would call a "nerd"). i've read it, thank you for the reference.

not going to happen grUmps. not going to happen. we're a 21st century superpower. you are proposing some sort of civil war over insuring, uninsured americans. that's just so dumb. a civil war over that? you think it's worth that? you're passion is fascinating but human emotion is a bad ingredient for governing.

welcome to the 21st century. all hail the american empire and it's "power" over the people (so silly - you want to have a violent uprising because of obamacare - you think the government is going to just hand you back the power?).

like, seriously. come on. do you really think that?

see you on this blog and we'll see about that...so silly!

MikeD| 2.3.11 @ 8:49AM

Since this post is concerning an article from yesterday I suspect your attention span has most likely been passed. As another writer posted, you are probably not an American and therefore have no standing to post anything. You obviously never read the Declaration of Independence or the Preamble to the Constitution or you'd never have betrayed your ignorance in your replies.

No government is legitimate unless its' "just powers" can be traced to a legitimizing philosophy or event that has been approved and supported by the citizens of a country.

Our Founding Fathers wrote extensively during the establishment of our government, and their intentions were shown not just in the Constitution, but also in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Federalist Papers, just to name a few. Our government directly traces its legitimacy to those documents and the intentional inclusion that we were "ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, among them Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They couldn't have been any more specific.

We are not concerned about this "healthcare bill' as you call it; but with the philosophy and intentions behind the language which is clearly intended to establish magnitudes higher levels of government power over each of us and every aspect of our lives.

In dictatorships, secret police and enforcement of laws against criticizing the government are required because the rulers need them to enforce their control over the populace because THEY ARE NOT LEGITIMATE; and therefore neither is their power to enforce their whims and intentions by force.

You have obviously not read this monstrosity. Most of the people who voted for it in congress admitted they never read it. It shreds the Constitution in so many ways, from forcing the people to buy something the government wants them to, to forcing submission of each of us to a government committee that has the power of life and death over us.

This may not concern you gilbert, but it has a serious effect on me because I am 63 years of age and contracted a form of Motor Neuron Disease that is fatal and incurable. This is no academic exercise. I can afford to pay for my own healthcare, and I do; but under the monstrosity reid, pelosi and barry the muslim forced through congress illegally, I am not permitted to spend my own money to stay alive.

Frankly, that trumps any 'cute', 'trite', or 'sophomoric' comment you may make on this site. You do not have a clue what you're talking about. When you have read the bill from cover to cover and can discuss it intelligently, then you may actually be able to make some sense. Until then, you're merely an amusing distraction who thinks he's 'cute' but, in reality, you're a buffoon and you don't even realize it.

Oldefarte| 2.2.11 @ 2:20PM

Peter Ferrera's editorial is simply BRILLIANT, as it completely defines this issue, and offers the [solely] ultimate conclusion possible. I disagree slightly in the idea of black grants to states for the indigents and for the insurance avoiding [although financial capable] consumers. Does society [and taxpayers] have a moral obligation to indemnify the health problems of these people? I think not, since I believe [except from those who through no fault of their own are incarcerated in poverty] that each individual person has a moral responsibility to take care of themselves, and not transfer that responsibility to others/society. Everyone is BORN EQUAL, but do not END UP EQUAL in life, because of their individual FREE WILL choices. If someone chooses to lazily meander through life, not put forth the required effort to become educated by means of the free public school system, and to therefore not be able [or willing] to earn the income required to pay their own health insurance needs; is that my [or society's] fault or responsibility. Again, I say NO. If same has to be, the less costly and more proficient/economic method IMO would be to establish a system of government run hospitals/clinics/medical facilities exclusively dedicated to the financially poor/indigent population, staffed by medical interns/residents, etc that would be FREE to said patients. This would take the profit motive within private insurance/medical practice element out of the equation, and therefore be less expensive!!!!

RWinks| 2.2.11 @ 2:54PM

You seem to have a rather pathetic faith in socialized education--the free public school system---and recommend socialized medicine---for the indigent. Can you name ANY endeavor in which the government is engaged (without that evil profit motive) that is "less expensive"?

I recommend reading Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman, plenty of liquids and bed rest. Alternatively, look up Veterans Administration. Here you will find "free" medical care....at more than twice the cost per patient.

Bill| 2.2.11 @ 2:49PM

So, with Judge Vinson's decision now before us, and understanding that the centuries-old legal principle of contracts is that no one can be compelled to make contracts with ANYONE if he doesn't want to, what now happens to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, whose basis for existence is also the Commerce Clause? The Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly Title VII thereof, requires people to make contracts with people they may not want to contract with...

firebrand| 2.2.11 @ 3:04PM

If Dennis Kucinich (sp?) can get $150,000 for an olive pit in his sandwich, what are Harvard students, who studied Constitutional Law under Berserk Obama entitled to in punitive damages?

firebrand| 2.2.11 @ 3:16PM

Spike - you would do well to research the different titles in teaching profession - Obama was not a Constitutional PROFESSOR.There are many different levels of education.

You don't call a corporal a Commander and you don't call an instructor or lecturer or teaching assistant or assistant professor a PROFESSOR.

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:42PM

A "Lecturer", like an "Adjunct Professor", is the bottom of the academic barrel. They are not full time, they are essentially contractors brought in when the real professors (Whom I have no more regard for either.) are off doing whatever they do when they're out playing. They are paid next to nothing and are literally a dime a dozen. Most do not even have advanced degrees. If anybody wants a career in academia and the best they can do is one of these 'pseudo-jobs', they'd better go into something else.

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:59PM

you're not smarter than dictator obama. so obey and pay taxes. you will in 2014 =]

MikeD| 2.3.11 @ 8:53AM

That certainly made sense gilbert. Normally, when one is digging a hole it is advisable to stop digging before you get in so deep there's no way out. You are neither cute nor intelligent. Go play with somebody closer to your mental age. I know that the kindergarten has recess around mid-day.

kwinterkorn| 2.2.11 @ 3:36PM

re Mimi's comment above"

The off-course veering occured in the 1930's when under great court-packing pressure, and the panic/mental paralysis induced by the long Great Depression, the Supreme Court changed theie fundamental interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Before then, the clause was understood to exist to rectify the trade-stifling behavior of the states under the Articles of Confederation in the early post-Revolution years. The intention was more freedom-----stopping the tariffs and other protectionists limits on interstate commerce. After the New Deal Supreme Court, the Commerce Clause became a centralized government wild card, to be played whenever the Feds wanted more power and control.

Stare decesis is all well and good, yet it is shameful that there is not more pressure from the conservative throughout the courts to return the commerce clause to its rightful place in our constitution, as clearly was intended by the framers.

I love the 10th Amendment movement that is alive in our country. I would love more a return of the commerce clause to its proper meaning: Consider how much of the wreckage of the New Deal, the Great Society, and much since has been enacted only with the permissive interpretation of this clause.

firebrand| 2.2.11 @ 3:42PM

Actually, in the evolution of lies surrounding Obama's education and accomplishments his being "Professor' of Law has often been described as "at Harvard" as I jokingly did above.

He was a "senior" lecturer at the University of Chicago, part time. ("I'm not a Professor, but I can play one in Chicago - where anything goes.")

A bit like John Kerry's Vietnam service of three months, cruisin' up the river into Cambodia, getting three Purple Hearts, requiring only a Band-Aid.

GENE HAUBER| 2.2.11 @ 4:14PM

Mr. Ferrara,

WELL, WELL, WELL DONE SIR!

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:27PM

As usual, the United States cannot address a national problem in a national fashion. Health care is the albatross around the nation's neck. In the end, we remain the laughingstock of the industrialized world and deservedly so. The conservative solution is simply "I am a rugged individualist, you're on your own. " But, so are you. In the end we have what we started out with ... Nothing. This was originally the solution proposed by those paragons of liberalism: Mitt Romney and Bob Dole. All hail the sacred Constitution.

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.11 @ 6:08PM

jj
Please go away. We adults are trying to have a conversation here.
Thank you

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 6:55PM

JJ Hein is....not good at being a troll.

"Health care is the albatross around the nation's neck."

wow are you clueless. we have the best healthcare system in the world. billionaires and sunglass wearing third world leftist thugs all agree when you are ill you come to America for your health care.

what we have in this country is a federally screwed up method of paying for health care. The libtards are the ones who have screwed up the free market place and now we have plummeted from abundance to scarcity in less than one generation.

great job by the likes of JJ Hein is...a moron and his fellow travelers.

JJ Hein is.......

B. D.| 2.2.11 @ 6:02PM

What always amazes me is how little "strict" Constitutionalists know about the debate that led to the Constitution. Yes, Madison had his ideas, but so did Washington, Hamilton, and all the rest. There was no consensus on what the Constitution meant, even by the framers themselves, which is why we even have political parties in the first place.

Hamilton felt that the elastic clause and commerce clause put together allowed for the formation of the National Bank, many disagreed. In the end the courts allowed for a broad interpretation of the Constitution when the Marshall court upheld the Constitutionality of the National Bank. The Constitution has, and always will be, a living document that is constantly reinterpreted to fit the times.

As for the argument that requiring health care is forcing people to engage in commerce, until we no longer require emergency room access regardless of ability to pay, by living in this country, everyone is already engaged in Health Care commerce. The simple fact of the matter is people can't guarantee that they will not get sick, can't guarantee that they won't require medical care, which means the government should have the right to require that you have the ability to pay for said care when you (eventually) will need it, otherwise the people who do have health care will continue to pay for people who don't.

I find it mighty convenient that this author, as well as many of the commenters, neglect to mention that two federal judges have also upheld the provisions of the health care law. Until the Supreme Court decides a case, a federal ruling is not the law of the land, especially when you have multiple conflicting rulings.

Lastly, for all of the states rights, states are supreme theorists out there, the Constitution was written as a direct result of the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which did give states supreme power. The Constitution was meant to be the supreme law of the land with a strong central government. Washington's decision to use military force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion (certainly a states rights vs federal government issue), thus showing that the laws of Congress, not the states, are absolute.

JP| 2.2.11 @ 6:42PM

"As for the argument that requiring health care is forcing people to engage in commerce, until we no longer require emergency room access regardless of ability to pay, by living in this country, everyone is already engaged in Health Care commerce."

Try reading Judge Vinson's opinion -especially dealing with the bit of sophistry you laid out. As a matter of fact, I believe Federalist 51 explained the intent of the Commerce Clause quite clearly. Using your logic, Congress can use hypotheticals to essientially take out all of the enumerated powers and rule without fear of the Constitution. Your talking points hold niether constitutional logic, and on the face of it is quite jeuvenille. Try actually debating the legal merits and not Obama's talking points.

JP| 2.2.11 @ 6:51PM

"I find it mighty convenient that this author, as well as many of the commenters, neglect to mention that two federal judges have also upheld the provisions of the health care law. Until the Supreme Court decides a case, a federal ruling is not the law of the land, especially when you have multiple conflicting rulings."

You really need to know how Constitutional Law before you post such nonsense. Perhaps you should attend Law School 101. It is not upholding a law by a federal judge that makes it Constitutional. Federal Judges rarely declare laws unconstitutional. A Federal Judge is empowered to render any law unconstitutional, and the oneous is on the plantiffs (in this case the Executive or Legislative branches) to prove otherwise. So when 2 federal judges rule the ObamaCare is unconstitutional, and one of them declares the entire law is null and void, the law cannot be executed until a higher court renders an opinion to the contrary.

As of now, no state have the legal obligation to obey the edicts of the IRS, or HHS, or the DOJ vis-a-vis ObamaCare. And Judge Vinson's opinion was well researched, well thought out from a legal point of view, and well written. It will be very difficult for an appeals court (in this case the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals- one of the most conservative ones) to overturn. That is why, Obama will most certainly go straight to SCOTUS and pray that Kennedy will vote to overturn Vinson's ruling (dicey at best).

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.11 @ 6:11PM

Hey B.D.
Hail Ceasar, right?
Screw that!

Al Adab| 2.2.11 @ 6:31PM

Repeal vote in the Senate just in at 47-51. Not a single Democrat supported a states position against the bill. Can you say hubris boys and girls?

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 8:02PM

Every dem just got on the record and will have to live with the vote. I wonder how the idiots in West Virginia feel right now? How many people out there just got one more lesson that they can NEVER TRUST A DEMOCRAT? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN A DEM IS LYING? HIS/HER LIPS ARE MOVING!!!

The first campaign ads for the 2012 election were just written today. See that, Mr. Mancin?

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 10:18PM

Trusting politicians is what got us into this mess. too damn many people trust politicians. don't trust them. key an eye on them at all times and a hand on your wallet!

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 6:50PM

You should all be so proud.

When is a good time to tell my deaf daughter that she is getting kicked off my insurance and that she'll be back in the spot we used to suffer through.

The insurance companies can again start denying her coverage due to her pre existing condition.

Time for you all to celebrate! Enjoy!

Wayne | 2.2.11 @ 7:04PM

You can pay for it, she is your daughter.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 7:49PM

You don't understand. No insurance company will accept her.

Praise Jesus! Insurers will again be able to deny coverage to those who have had past health issues!

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 10:24PM

So then you would prefer the unconstitutional power grab instead of congress finding a way to legally set up a high risk pool for persons with pre-existing conditions?

jharp| 2.3.11 @ 12:15AM

"instead of congress finding a way to legally set up a high risk pool for persons with pre-existing conditions?"

We have that already. It's called Medicare. And the pre existing condition is old age.

And you idiots have done everything you can to do away with Medicare regardless.

Or why don't you rise up to the challenge and tell us YOUR solution? It's only been what, 3 decades that we've been waiting?

God you people are stupid.

darcy| 2.2.11 @ 7:14PM

You give me all your money to pay for the care of my autistic grandchild then I can give you all my money to pay for your deaf daughter.

Then send me the bill for your groceries, your gas, and your travel expenses; and I'll do likewise with you.

After all: life should be suffer-free!!!
That's what the utopians preach and the do-gooder, social gospel/social justice teachers teach.

Life is short, nasty, and brutish. Deal with it. Don't ask others to bail you out. Stand up like a man and face the suffering; pray to God for comfort -- don't ask the government to steal from your neighbor so your life can be easier: You may be stealing from someone whose life is measurably worse than yours.

B. D.| 2.2.11 @ 7:43PM

Wayne and Darcy, you seem to miss the point, without the Obama health care bill, jharp can't get insurance for his daughter because of a ore-existing condition. Without insurance, no group rates, making any care out of the reach of even solidly middle class Americans.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 7:59PM

Thank you for helping me to make my point.

Folks like Wayne and Darcy are fools. And at this date I find it incomprehensible that anyone could be so ignorant about ObamaCare.

But that is todays right wingers.

tonypal| 2.2.11 @ 9:20PM

JHarp, you sound like a pretty shitty father. Why not just do whatever you can to pay for the treatment yourself? I know if my daughter needed treatment, I wouldn't be whining like some loser bitch about the fact that other people don't believe it's their responsibility to take care of your family. Be a man and take care of your daughter.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 9:24PM

"JHarp, you sound like a pretty shitty father. Why not just do whatever you can to pay for the treatment yourself?"

What are you even talking about you nitwit?

Pay for what treatment? I'm trying to get her insurance so that should she require extraordinary care that she doesn't get dumped onto the backs of taxpayers.

tonypal| 2.2.11 @ 9:35PM

Nah. You're just whining like a bitch.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 9:55PM

Maybe I should consider your approach.

To hell with paying for insurance. She can always just go to the emergency room on the taxpayers nickel. Right?

John Navratil| 2.2.11 @ 8:05PM

I'm missing something here. I've dealt with pre-existing conditions in the past (specifically asthma requiring hospitalization). It didn't stop me from getting insurance for my family (private, no group), just coverage for asthma-related conditions for my wife. I can understand that there wouldn't be coverage for hearing-related disorders but is it really impossible to get insurance for unrelated health issues?

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things wrong with the health-care system -- most notably, the reliance on insurance for all things. We need to get back to where basic health care is fee-for-service for all but the really needy, and insurance is called in only for the unexpected, expensive events.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 8:34PM

John Navratil

"I can understand that there wouldn't be coverage for hearing-related disorders but is it really impossible to get insurance for unrelated health issues?"

Yes. And it varies from state to state.

And the cause of my daughters deafness is unknown. So they just want to avoid her completely.

And why after all of these years do you stupid wingnuts continue to insist that yes there are problems, but never once offer a solution?

Congrats on being the smartest dumbass on this board. And you are still a fraud.

tonypal| 2.2.11 @ 9:23PM

Genius, there's many solutions out there. The fact that you don't know what conservatives have put forth to solve the problems with healthcare coverage speaks to your stupidity. And once again, any man who would waste their time whining like some sort of loser bitch about the fact that other people won't take on your responsibility as a father is simply evidence that you're unfit to be a parent. Grow up, be a man and do whatever you must to deal with your daughter's situation and stop whining.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 9:29PM

"Genius, there's many solutions out there."

I'll bite. Let's hear it. I've been waiting for over 20 years.

Or are you talking about RomneyCare? The 2012 Republican candidate for Presidents plan.

The one that mandates that by law you have to buy insurance?

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 10:35PM

what a troll.

you made what, five posts and responses about stupid republicans screwing your deaf kid out of her insurance and then you toss a zinger grenade out at Mitt Romney because he tried to do something about the health insurance crisis. Why would you do that--Romney basically was helping persons like your daughter--but you denigrate him instead? Why? Is his polling number making him close to the GOP front runner making you nervous or something?

I almost fell for the my deaf daughter has a pre-existing condition line. If you were really worried about her condition you would have her move to Mass so you could sign up for their coverage. Oh but wait you are full of shit! Sorry I forgot that part. Maybe the state you live in does not have a high risk pool for persons like your daughter. Maybe she should move to one--or find a big liberal employer like the SEIU or some of the other POS companies that have gotten an Obamacare waiver.

Man you are a douchebag!

Impeach Don't Wait| 2.2.11 @ 9:17PM

Nobody wants children with pre-existing conditions to not get health care. Essentially you have been presented with this: "We convert the U.S. to Socialism or your daughter doesn't get health care." People in your situation will be easy to blackmail by the leftists. (I admit it's indeed a travesty that our present system denies your child healthcare which allows Obama to buy your support that way. So you'll buy into Socialism so your child can have health care. (I'm not criticizing, I empathize but ask you to realize that the stakes are HUGE. That's why the Conservatives need to come up with a solution for your child QUICKLY... because people will vote according to their needs.) (By the way, I have no health care and can't afford it, so I share your concern.)

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 9:58PM

You are a complete effing retard. Please ignore my posts and I'll do the same with yours.

Sheesh.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 7:53PM

"You give me all your money to pay for the care of my autistic grandchild then I can give you all my money to pay for your deaf daughter."

I have a better idea. Let's all of us pool our money in an insurance risk pool and pay out for those who need it. Kind of like the rest of the civilized world does whilst spending 1/2 of what we spend.

You know, if your neighbor is carrying around tuberculosis if could harm the health of the entire community.

John Navratil| 2.2.11 @ 8:13PM

jharp,

Do you have your closing statement in a signature block? Do you really think truly stupid people benefit from such erudition? Or is it an experiment to see of you repeat it often enough that it will become true? It is really quite tedious. Perhaps you could change it up a bit - if it's not too taxing for you to do so.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 8:36PM

No. Maybe. No.

And no thanks. It best expresses todays wingnut.

JP| 2.2.11 @ 6:55PM

And who says your deaf daughter will be getting treatment under ObamaCare? HHS has the authority to deny treatments based upon financial, social, and other conditions. And with a record number of doctors leaving thier practices, you may end up seeing a RN or DO, or some other non-specialist who resides 2 states away.

You really have no clue what ObamaCare has in store for you. And with ObamaCare, even if you have the money, it would be illegal to see qualified specialists, as they would be nothing more than state employees.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 7:55PM

"And with ObamaCare, even if you have the money, it would be illegal to see qualified specialists, as they would be nothing more than state employees."

You are a blithering idiot.

And "I" don't understand ObamaCare? Sheesh.

JP| 2.2.11 @ 8:20PM

And you never responded to my comments which focus upon the new authority by HHS to "bend the cost curve". Congress vested HHS with the authority to deny treatment to anyone its bureaucrats deem as unacceptable for treatments. This is exactly what the UK has with NICE. Funny, I bet we could go back to the comments 18 months ago and find you supporting HHS's authority to deny treatment to patients based upon subjective guidelines set up by a national board.

So cry me a river. There are certainly other ways to lower costs, but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid said no way, for it wasn't cost containment they were after, but power. And no, there is no way anyone to create risk pools for the simple reasons that Leftists like you deemed them immoral.

Save your absurdities for other people. And BTW I seriously doubt you have a deaf daughter. I've seen libs like you make up BS just to take the rhetorical high ground.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 8:43PM

"Congress vested HHS with the authority to deny treatment to anyone its bureaucrats deem as unacceptable for treatments."

You are an idiot. ObamaCare is private insurance of your choice paying for private providers.

"This is exactly what the UK has with NICE."

No. It isn't you idiot. The UK has socialized medicine. Something that you obviously have no idea of what it even is.

You are an idiot. Please ignore my posts. I have no interest in engaging in your idiocy.

JP| 2.3.11 @ 9:37AM

Try reading the bill, jharp. The insurance providers become nothing more than public utilities. Most of the smaller and regional providers are closing up shop. And you cannot buy the insurance of your choice, and you cannot chose what treatments you want. That will all be done by 180 new HHS bureaucracies. It's a one size fits all approach. And there will be a national board similar to NICE that will set the standards for treatment, cost-benefit analysis per patient, and reimbursement. Again, try reading the bill instead of mouthing dated talking points.

BackToBasics| 2.2.11 @ 7:05PM

The Democrats got much of their liberal policy changes over the years through judicial fiat rather than through the legislative process. Such policies as nationwide abortion, hiring quotas, forced desegregation and other changes were implemented unconstitutionally through the courts rather than through the legislative process.

Yet, now that a judge rules against Obamacare, the Dems are attempting to implement Obamacare anyway. I think they will not get away with it but they will continue to try.

If they don't want to abide by this ruling, why should we abide by nationwide abortion, hiring quotas, etc.?

tonypal| 2.2.11 @ 9:17PM

JHarp, I'm going to take a shot with this and hope you respond to what I regard as a simple question. Where exactly in the US Constitution is the Congress vested with the authority to demand that one citizen pay for the healthcare for another?

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 9:32PM

"Where exactly in the US Constitution is the Congress vested with the authority to demand that one citizen pay for the healthcare for another?"

The same place that vests the Congress the power to force you to pay for the interstate highway system.

The commerce clause.

tonypal| 2.2.11 @ 9:40PM

Really, the Interstate Commerce Clause vests Congress with that power? Hate to break the news genius, but the ICC isn't a catch all provision to suit your twisted desires. But since you seem to believe you're the only one here with a brain, perhaps you can explain exactly how that works. I'll bet that you're going to respond by saying we're all too stupid to understand the explanation, or something like that. So don't even bother, just explain it or shut up and go back to being a lousy father.

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 10:04PM

"But since you seem to believe you're the only one here with a brain, perhaps you can explain exactly how that works."

Sure. I'll be happy to accommodate you.

Right after I here YOUR alternative solution to ObamaCare.

How do you deal with those pre existing conditions exactly, dumbass?

And while you are at it. Pleas explain to me where it authorizes the federal government to tax me to build highways through my friggin state.

tonypal| 2.2.11 @ 9:43PM

By the way, in your highly anticipated response, give us a detailed explanation as to how healthcare qualifies as interstate commerce. Again, we idiots await what will certainly be a detailed response.

Lisa| 2.2.11 @ 9:26PM

It is very sad that a Supreme Court decision can be predicted based on politics. How about the novel idea of a decision based on Constitutionality.

Speedypete| 2.2.11 @ 9:57PM

To understand the power that both houses and the president had to change our guarantees of freedom just read Section 6402(f)(2). This revises existing law so that the government can ignore the criminal intent principle in violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKB). AKB prohibits the payment or receipt of remuneration in exchange for referrals or the purchase of goods and services paid for by a federal health care program.The authors of PPACA used OBAMACARE revised the statute such that "a person need not have actual knowledge of [AKB] or specific intent to commit a violation." The "person" who will most likely be prosecuted regardless of "actual knowledge" or "intent" is, of course, your doctor or someone with whom he does business. Since when is anyone guilty until proven innocent? Ridiculous. They were so busy trying to take control of the medical profession (and us) they forgot the severability section. It proves once again that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

tonypal| 2.2.11 @ 9:59PM

TO EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD NOT NAMED JHARP:

JHarp's problem is that as a parent, he's a loser. He would prefer to come here and whine than deal with his daughter's issues. He believes that his neighbors should take care of his daughter's problems. My guess is that JHarp has better things to spend his money on than taking care of his daughter. Perhaps he needs the money to pay off gambling debts, or the local meth dealer.

My favorite part of any JHarp post is when he concludes with his now legendary "God you people are idiots." All that proves is that aside from being a lousy parent, he's suffering from a particularly acute case of projection. Normally I would feel sorry for a guy with so many obvious personal problems. However, I find it hard to have sympathy for a guy who can't even suck it up and take care of his own daughter, who deserves much better than to have JHarp as her dad.

So to all my TAS brethren, take pity on JHarp. He's obviously a deeply conflicted and confused soul.

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 10:04PM

oh wow, how insightful! i can't believe you talk about your fellow american like that. those are some low blows/assumptions.

be quiet, pay taxes. you will =] me too! because i love you, man. i care about you...

jharp| 2.2.11 @ 11:18PM

tonypal,

You are an idiot.

My daughter is going to be going to pharmacy school. She is an undergraduate today. And unlike you dumbasses can easily see that she should not be denied access to health insurance.

You and your dumbass offspring will be working for folks like her.

Nite| 2.2.11 @ 10:25PM

Obama nominated Dr. Donald Berwick again. Why? If Berwick was not confirmed by the Senate with a large majority of Dems, what makes Obama think he can get confirmed this time? Berwick is dangerous. Contact your Senator and ask they vote against his nomination along with Craig Becker. Another re-nomination.

FREE tea| 2.2.11 @ 11:51PM

---NOW onto the legal future of our hosts of
entrenched, 'ever concerned' Luciferian, Freemasonic, 'eugenics and globalist' instigating, promoting, funding and executing, 'charitable'
TAX FREE foundations and NGOs.

These cabals -----ARE the government.

FREE TRADE was devised centuries ago and
is a cloak for consolidation, control and VASTcultural, and actual, genocide. It's in their
own agendas, reports, documents. UNDENIABLE.

NOW one and ALLLL are answereable, indeed,
directed by them via funding and agendas.

The KEY figures are members themselves!

We are reaping the bitter, sordid harvest of
almost a century of their 'influence'.

At the very, very least this constitutes a 'Seperation of
Church and State' issue that makes Old Catholic Spain look like a treaty port.

At the realistic worst ---it's been TREASON.

"Come out from among them.
Do NOT partake of their sins."
-----WHERE did I read that?

Yosemeti Sam| 2.2.11 @ 11:52PM

A quote from Hubert Humphrey (Democrat) 1911-1978:

" There are not enough jails, not enough policemen, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people".

ROBERT MCPEEK| 2.3.11 @ 7:48AM

Now if some of the Tea Party Republicans have the balls to stand up to the Democrat demagoguery that making the necessary market-based changes to the healthcare delivery system won't kill Granny or "the poor" America will have moved forward by moving backward to the beliefs of Madison and other framers of this Constitution. The old-line Repubs like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, Orin Hatch and, of course, John McCain have demonstrated time and again do not have the stomach, or is it balls, for this fight. REM

MikeD| 2.3.11 @ 8:59AM

The Republicans always seem to fall victim to the strange disease that shrinks their 'gonadal spheroids" and destroys their backbones when they get to Washington. Can we dare hope it might not happen this time?

The American Spectator

The Right Prescription

The Legal Future of Obamacare

View all comments (187) | Leave a comment

Robbins Mitchell| 2.2.11 @ 6:19AM

Tomas| 2.2.11 @ 9:44AM

tj| 2.2.11 @ 2:11PM

oldfart| 2.2.11 @ 6:29AM

Consertive View| 2.2.11 @ 8:15AM

oldfart| 2.2.11 @ 9:17AM

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 1:00PM

Pauly D| 2.2.11 @ 1:25PM

RWinks| 2.2.11 @ 2:00PM

Consertive Vieq| 2.2.11 @ 3:28PM

BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 2:55AM

sam goodman| 2.2.11 @ 3:01PM

ThePowerPickle| 2.2.11 @ 2:14PM

reheiler| 2.2.11 @ 3:08PM

PaulD| 2.2.11 @ 6:36AM

oldfart| 2.2.11 @ 6:41AM

Al Adab| 2.2.11 @ 11:49AM

reheiler| 2.2.11 @ 3:12PM

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:11PM

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 5:41PM

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 7:33PM

Carol | 2.2.11 @ 6:42AM

oldfart| 2.2.11 @ 6:46AM

Robbins Mitchell| 2.2.11 @ 7:10AM

LillithMc| 2.2.11 @ 11:40AM

East Texas Rancher| 2.2.11 @ 9:06AM

WRTolkas| 2.2.11 @ 12:54PM

Arch| 2.2.11 @ 7:15AM

Ted| 2.2.11 @ 9:44AM

Blackwatch| 2.2.11 @ 5:53PM

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.2.11 @ 7:23AM

VBMax| 2.2.11 @ 9:37AM

da monk| 2.2.11 @ 5:21PM

gazinya| 2.2.11 @ 10:24PM

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.2.11 @ 8:04AM

Consertive View| 2.2.11 @ 8:33AM

Consertive View| 2.2.11 @ 8:34AM

Ted| 2.2.11 @ 9:46AM

Al Adab| 2.2.11 @ 10:37AM

gazinya| 2.2.11 @ 10:28PM

reheiler| 2.2.11 @ 3:16PM

Al Adab| 2.2.11 @ 4:25PM

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:16PM

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:43PM

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:34PM

jolizoom| 2.3.11 @ 1:36AM

martin j smith| 2.2.11 @ 8:16AM

Deborah D| 2.2.11 @ 8:20AM

Appleby| 2.2.11 @ 8:20AM

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:35PM

Mimi| 2.2.11 @ 8:21AM

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:41PM

john dubose| 2.2.11 @ 8:39AM

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:36PM

Ran / Si Vis Pacem| 2.2.11 @ 8:49AM

Dantesque| 2.2.11 @ 9:34AM

Ted| 2.2.11 @ 9:58AM

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 12:32PM

darcy| 2.2.11 @ 6:58PM

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 7:38PM

George S| 2.2.11 @ 9:45AM

Mimi| 2.2.11 @ 12:20PM

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 5:22PM

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:39PM

Len| 2.2.11 @ 9:55AM

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 12:37PM

gilbert| 2.2.11 @ 9:42PM

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:36PM

Lawrence in New York| 2.2.11 @ 9:56AM

mbd| 2.2.11 @ 10:37AM

Mimi| 2.2.11 @ 12:28PM

Mike| 2.2.11 @ 12:40PM

CopyKatnj| 2.2.11 @ 2:15PM

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:36PM

jjheinis| 2.2.11 @ 4:45PM

MikeD| 2.2.11 @ 7:41PM