Comments on: Grounds For A Constitutional Challenge Of H.R.4872

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:11:50 +0000

It would be nice to have people like Judge Napolitano on the court instead of the semi-politicians we now have. While the Court might strike down some things on narrow technical grounds (such as commandeering the states which merely allows the feds to just administer the program directly), I doubt that they would really slay the beast. Spending earmarks are certainly legal but different tax rates / laws for different states will have trouble.

However, Socialist Insecurity, Medicare, and Medicaid have nothing to do with the Constitution of 1787 or the 10th Amendment. But since 1937, we have allowed internment of Americans based on ancestry, declared that a chemo patient smoking pot interferes with interstate commerce, said that a teen ager can be punished by the state for displaying a “Bong Hits for Jesus” sign on a sidewalk in a public parade, legalized dual citizenship (a true oxymoron) in spite of Congress’ intentions, approved coerced drug testing of children, and numerous other idiocies. Remember that 4 justices thought that requiring a PRIVATE organization like the Boy Scouts to accept Gay scoutmasters was not protected by freedom of association.

This nonsensical welfare state may end when the government goes BANKRUPT.

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:53:56 +0000

We need both, court fights and states that refuse to comply and anything else available, including the highly unlikely new congressmen/women repealing it in 1010 or 12. Whatever works but the most important thing is not to put all the eggs in only one basket.

By: james huggins

james huggins — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:53:17 +0000

Mr Hogan has it right. We can stand on our heads and spit nickels, legally speaking, and spend years leaping legal hurdles but in the final analysis we are depending on the Supreme Court for judgement. An iffy exercise at best.

By: Wanderer

Wanderer — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:40:59 +0000

Greg, since when is being right a guarantee of being successful?

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:25:37 +0000

I hope the Judge is right about this.

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:57:10 +0000

The strategy employed by the advocates of the sorry “health care” legislation seems pretty obvious. The point is to get their foot in the door. Several years are likely to pass before a case winds its way through the glacially slow legal system. Even then, any SCOTUS finding is probably going to be very narrow in scope, leaving the majority of the law intact. Either way, I suspect that they will have destroyed much of what remains of private insurance in the interim.

The more promising approach is nullification by the states. It could happen immediately and take root before the worst effects of government run care are felt.

While the states are at it, they could also permit out-of-state insurance coverage, thus giving its constituents a desperately needed dose of competition. Ultimately that is what will drive down costs and make care affordable for everyone.