Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation Brief...

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

On Obama Care:

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/11-398bsacLandmarkLegalFoundation_FILED.pdf

Copy and paste

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

I didn't copy and paste. I provided the link to those so inclined to read and become educated on the issues involved in the pending case before the court today. Of course I did want to expose some liberals to the workings of one of the great constitutional minds in America, in hopes that might end up on the floor doing the chicken.

Maytag!

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

I really didn't want down load PDF file on the I pad but well got fly home Tuesday so be good reading
I liked his last two book's great read

 

[cjh]

I didn't copy and paste. I provided the link to those so inclined to read and become educated on the issues involved in the pending case before the court today. Of course I did want to expose some liberals to the workings of one of the great constitutional minds in America, in hopes that they might end up on the floor doing the chicken.

Nice brief.

I wonder if the justices will read only this brief, or if the justices will read a number of briefs presenting a number of arguments by a number of the country's best Supreme Court practitioners in order to become educated on the issues involved?

 

[unregistered]

 

[bra_man69]

Lol most aren't very smart to understand they need pictures and links to Wikipedia.

 

[eyer]

"Only Justice Clarence Thomas was silent," CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen said. "He hasn't asked a question in six years, and no one expected him to start today."

I can see Kennedy and Roberts opting to uphold...

...and even Scalia not very far behind them.

Heck...

...I can even envision Thomas being the lone patriot standing.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

On Obama Care:

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/11-398bsacLandmarkLegalFoundation_FILED.pdf

I heard him on the radio.

None of it will mean a thing to four of the justices, their votes are already secured.

He and the Libertarians are both bringing up the point about forced contracts, if they can force a private citizen to enter into a contract based on the fact that they are not engaging in commerce and their participation might save the government some money, then there is no end to what the government can do in order to save money. Since the law will be upheld we are now serfs of the state to be managed as they see fit under the rubric of cost-savings. Ain't 'Democracy' grand? I think it's going to take an enlightened and benevolent* oligarchy to manage it correctly...

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I posted it because it makes the essential constitutional arguments against Obama Care.

The Constitution has been reduced to a historical curiosity in the shadow of the light and love of 'Social Justice.'

Using the power of the government to engage in positive interference was a Siren's call too seductive to resist; we are now at the mercy of "those who torment us for our own good... with the approval of their own conscience.'

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Nice brief.

I wonder if the justices will read only this brief, or if the justices will read a number of briefs presenting a number of arguments by a number of the country's best Supreme Court practitioners in order to become educated on the issues involved?

Do you think that brief means a single thing to this guy since the needs of the few are easily met by the abilities and means of the many, and after all, isn't that what government is for? to provide all men with their full range of civil rights.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There is this. If Obama care is constitutional it will have taken the power of Congress to a point to where the check of the courts is emasculated to the point of almost nonexistence. I wonder if the SCOTUS wants to cede that kind of additional power to the other branch of government. For some reason I just don't see the court handing to the person who called them out and humiliated them in public this kind of political victory, aside from the unconstitutional aspects of the bill..

Again, four Justices are there simply to write and enable Social Justice law, and single payer health care eats at their mind like a cancer and what others think about them is far more important than any power they have, now, or in the future, their position is prestige enough on their list of academic accomplishments. After this battle is won, the only other real victories are education and nutrition [maybe housing/sanitation] (which they will now have the tools to deal with) and they will go down in 'history' as the five that enabled the Federal government to finally and properly manage our lives for us. I get the impression that Kennedy would love to be forever known as the Fifth Shining Knight of the Socialist victory over Selfishness.

I further submit that the judges of the court, and the people who support and surround them, no longer see competing and checking branches of government, but friendlier, cooperating agencies of THE government of the (more solidly) United States...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach."
"And it's important also to make health a human right because the main health determinants are not health care but sanitation, nutrition, housing, social justice, employment, and the like."
Donald Berwick
Death Panel Czar

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One wonders what kind of a hollow victory there will be if it is declared constitutional, when the result will be the destruction of the American economy, should the Congress decide to reverse their present course of de-funding it, notwithstanding an affirmative vote by the court.

You judge by intention, not outcome.


Every plan, as I heard someone defend yesterday, needs a few tweaks over time...


Political Realists see the world as it is: ... In this world laws are written for the lofty aim of "the common good" and then acted out in life on the basis of common greed...; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral; a world where "reconciliation" means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation.... In the world as it is, the solution of each problem inevitably creates a new one.
Saul David Alinsky
Rules for Radicals

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

From Rich Lowry over at NRO

If the mandate stands, it will be the latest blow to Madison’s scheme, which is the best architecture for self-government yet devised by man, but has been steadily worn down over time. It is a damning indictment of contemporary Washington that, overall, it is so hostile to the Madisonian ethos. He is a most inconvenient Founding Father since he tells us: No, the federal government can’t do whatever it wants; no, we can’t just all get along; no, we can’t rush to pass whatever legislation is deemed a “can’t wait” priority by the president. Now, grow up.

In the mind of contemporary progressivism, these words of Madison from the Federalist Papers simply don’t compute: “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.” They are an antiquated 18th-century sentiment unsuited to our more complex and more sophisticated time, to be ignored when not actively scorned.

But Madison thought this division of power so important for a reason: “In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

The entire system is meant to maximize accountability and competition...

But how much do the Progressives hate competition and personal accountability?

I play ping pong but I don't keep score as not to shame the Communists.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In his book on Madison’s political thought, American Compact, Gary Rosen notes that “as Madison feared, utility rather than constitutionality has become the ultimate test for public policy.” The debate over Obamacare at the time of its passage focused on its cost, its workability, and its aggrandizing tendency more than its constitutionality. For Madison, Rosen continues, constitutional limits “were the deepest source of republican dignity, the bulwarks that he expected citizens to defend in order to remind themselves of their sovereignty.” Would that they were once again.

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Some major tweaks, as we cannot afford the existing program.

You never worry about the now.

Something will come up; remember, this is supposed to be a cash cow.

If that excess does not materialize, then the clarion call will be for more, not less...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is good, you might like it:

What must be challenged is the premise that the Constitution actually does grant Congress "broad power" over interstate commerce. The fact is that the language of the Constitution itself does not confer such power. Anyone who reads the document in search of a clear statement -- and the drafters were nothing if not clear, careful writers -- that Congress or the executive branch is supposed to have any power at all to dictate to individuals and businesses how they must act when engaged in "interstate commerce" searches in vain.

Instead, the supposedly broad powers to dictate to Americans how they must act, even to the point of demanding that they purchase particular products, is entirely an artifact of constitutional law. That is to say, in a number of its rulings about the meaning of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government has those "broad powers." It is easy to show that those rulings were erroneous, creating a wide divergence between the Constitution's plan for a republic with a separation of powers between the federal government and the states, with strict limits on the latter.

At the heart of the current dispute is "the Commerce Clause." Included in Article I, Section 8 under the powers specifically given to Congress, we find this language: "To regulate Commerce with Foreign nations, and among the several States..." Why was that inserted? James Madison later explained that "the Commerce Clause grew out of the abuse of power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the states, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the general government."

Thus, the purpose of that clause was to remedy a problem that had arisen in the new nation -- namely, that some states were impeding the flow of commerce with laws favoring producers within their borders. To keep commerce "regular" meant that Congress could enact laws to prevent that abuse of power by the states. It was never meant, as Madison wrote, as a grant of power for whatever future Congresses might want to do to control everything relating to people's commercial affairs.

For a long time, that was how the Supreme Court understood the Commerce Clause. As late as 1935, the Court refused to accede to the "progressive" notion that the clause meant that Congress could intervene in business operations. In Schechter Poultry, the Court declared unconstitutional the National Industrial Recovery Act on the grounds that Congress had no authority to dictate to businesses how they must operate, nor to delegate such decisions to unelected bureaucracies.

Late in 1936, however, President Roosevelt, angered at a Court that had struck down many of his statist plans for controlling the nation's economy, issued his infamous threat to pack the Supreme Court. That plan met with a great deal of opposition within his own party, but it apparently worked on two members of the Court: Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen Roberts. When it came to deciding the test case involving FDR's extraordinarily authoritarian National Labor Relations Act in 1937, they switched from supporting the old, correct understanding of the Commerce Clause to supporting the "progressive interpretation" that the clause gave Congress power to enact any law that would somehow "affect" interstate commerce. The funny thing about that decision, Jones & Laughlin Steel, is that the majority never bothered to mention the Court's previous Commerce Clause decisions. It was as if Schechter disappeared into a black hole.

The Court continued along that same line, allowing Congress to do whatever it wanted by calling it "regulation of interstate commerce" until reaching the utterly absurd case Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, a farmer in Ohio was fined for having grown more wheat than federal regulators permitted him to. He argued that the law was unconstitutional (at least as applied to him) because all of the wheat had been consumed on his own property. None had been sold at all, so there was no commerce, much less "interstate commerce." But, eager to uphold the "progressive" ideal of unlimited federal control over every aspect of the economy, the Court fashioned a remarkable justification. Since the farmer might have purchased some wheat in interstate commerce if he had not illegally grown his own, his conduct therefore could have "affected" the interstate market for wheat, and therefore his action was subject to federal punishment.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...tutional_law_and_obamacare.html#ixzz1qJoFqRf2


The main question is, what will they do to get to Kennedy...?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The main question is, what will they do to get to Kennedy...?

And that's what health care in America boils down to...

You have 4 judicial activists on the Supreme Court, 2 of whom are rancid ideologues (Scalia and his boy Thomas) seeking to remake America in their own hellish image and 2 of whom are 'corporatists' with zero respect for precedent (Roberts and Strip Search Sam).

You have 4 real American justices in Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, who will judge a case on its Constitutional merits...

And then you have Kennedy, who seems to decide cases based on what side of the bed he woke up on in the morning.

The deck is stacked 4-0 against America to start on most Constitutional issues of the day.