Hallelujah! The nightmarish scenario of a mandatory, “one-size-fits-all” health insurance, will be heard by the Supreme Court, in 2012. Since ObamaCare was crammed through the Congress and Senate in a ‘quasi’ legal, yet less than politically desirable construct, I have patiently waited to see if the Supreme Court would hear this case.
The Founders intent is that the many States act as mini-incubators of choices that are the true genius of our Country. Because the United States and our many Counties had once been self determining entities, living under the protection of the State and Federal government’s protection to conduct commerce across state lines and internationally, the United States grew in wealth and economic strength; “A jewel to be aspired to”. The States and Federal government “may” act as a bridge to ensure that commerce “can” take place in an equally just manner. The States and Federal government, “should not” force private individuals to purchase products, just because a bureaucrat believes that this could be a fabulous idea for “all”.
Centralized, top down, socialized governance will destroy the U.S. Constitution and it will destroy the brilliance of our Country’s ability to feed ourselves, and thus our ability to feed (and influence) the rest of the world to reach-up to our example. If socialized, communized, marxized government, was capable of attaining the nirvana the Progressives claim, there would be somewhere in history to prove it. There is “no proof”, anywhere in the world’s history that shows anything except famine, mediocrity and misery, as a result of centralized government. It is because of our uniqueness, which enables private individual’s to produce and thus create wealth, that the citizen’s of the United States have so much compassion for others. Without this wealth and potential for wealth, the U.S. citizen’s would behave no differently than the people from countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Russia and the many other centrally governed populace’s…they would act only in their own self interest to keep what little they have.
Please enjoy this article from Rivkin and Casey, contributor’s to the Wall Street Journal. Their piece is well written and well reasoned as to the outcome of the Supreme Court’s hearing on “ObamaCare”!
YiT, Shelly
- NOVEMBER 15, 2011
ObamaCare and the Limits of Government
When asked if the health law was constitutional, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi sneered, 'Are you serious?' Now the Supreme Court has decided it's a worthy question.
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether ObamaCare is constitutional, granting certiorari in a case brought by 26 states shortly after that law was enacted in March of last year. In so doing, it will be ruling upon the very nature of our federal union.
The Constitution limits federal power by granting Congress authority in certain defined areas, such as the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce. Those powers not specifically vested in the federal government by the Constitution or, as stated in the 10th Amendment, "prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The court will now determine whether those words still have meaning.
The President's health-care law faces a Constitutional reckoning, Daniel Henninger discusses on Opinion Journal. Photo: AP.
As we argued two years ago in these pages, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (aka ObamaCare) is unconstitutional. First and foremost, the law requires virtually every American to have health insurance. Congress purported to impose this unprecedented "individual mandate" pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, but the requirement is not limited to those who engage in any particular commercial or economic activity (or any activity at all). Rather, the mandate applies to everyone lawfully present in the United States who does not fall within one of the law's narrow exclusions.
Under our Constitution's system of dual sovereignty, only states have the authority to impose health and safety regulations on individuals simply because they are present. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the Constitution denies to the federal government this type of "general police power." Federal legislation must be grounded in one of the "enumerated" powers the Constitution grants to Congress—such as the power to regulate interstate commerce. Although the Supreme Court has interpreted that power broadly (especially since the 1940s), it has consistently held that the Commerce Clause has limits.
Read the full story by clicking here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your feedback and comments are welcome!