As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obamacare’s Legal Nightmare

I wanted to make sure you saw this piece in today’s Wall Street Journal outlining the case that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

This is a very clear precis detailing why the law’s requirement that everyone purchase insurance is unconstitutional. The piece also describes what other rulings the Court is likely to make with respect to the law.

Unsurprisingly, it was written by the lawyers who represented 26 states in their challenge to Obamacare. Making clear explanations of their case are what they get paid to do.

As you are probably aware, the Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the case and rule on it by summer.

In short, the central case against Obamacare is that government has no power to require you to purchase health insurance. The Obama administration has argued that under Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it can require you to do so because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, and not buying insurance is a form of commerce because your decision has economic impacts.

This, of course, is what’s known in the field of dialectics as a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch.

It is roughly like saying that not eating is a form of eating because it impacts your digestive system. So maybe I can sue McDonald’s because by not eating their food, it’s upsetting my stomach. Or maybe McDonald’s can sue me because by not buying their food, I’m causing them to make less money.

You see the problem here.

This is how the authors put it.

If Congress can require individuals to buy or otherwise obtain and maintain health insurance simply because they may be said to impact commerce by their very existence, without regard to any particular activity in which they have chosen to engage, then there is no limit on federal power. For example, if Congress can require you to buy health insurance because your lack of insurance may, at some point in the future, impose costs on the wider economy, then on the same theory it can require the purchase (or sale) of virtually any good or service, since the failure to have or use the relevant product can always be said to have some economic impact.

Obamacare has run into legal trouble solely because, in order to keep his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class, the president decided to require you to buy health insurance by punishing you with a fee if you fail to do so, instead of just taxing you.

The federal government, of course, has the right to tax your butt into oblivion if it so chooses.

In the one of the great unnoticed examples of hypocrisy of our young century, the Obama people have argued in court that the fee is basically a tax, so it’s Constitutional.

Which is known in the field of dialectics as “The Old Bait and Switch.”

Or just, dishonesty.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

26 Responses to Obamacare’s Legal Nightmare

  1. You have summarized my feeling exactly.
    What do you think about Elena Kagan’s e-mail exchanges with Lawence Tribe of Harvard regarding Obamacare.
    I think she should have recused herself from the deliberations and decision.

  2. Not to mention the fact that Obamacare violates the 13th amendment that abolished slavery. If I as a healthcare provider am forced provide HC to you, then I am in fact your slave.

  3. I am disabled with CNEIDS and when the gov’t introduced its pharmaceutical benefit, I was reluctant to participate because I suspected it would cost me more than it would benefit me.

    So, the gov’t decided to fine me for not joining. When I did finally and reluctantly join, the gov’t was going to charge me a fine for every single month that I had been able to join, but had chosen not to join.

    Somehow all of these fines disappeared and I was never charged anything. Was it because of my low income or did someone in the gov’t already suspect that this strong-arm tactic was unsavory and illegal?

    p.s. Bush was President then. I mention this only because once in a while it’s not Obama’s fault — lol.

    • I had a pharm plan briefly–when I could afford a Supplenental, which I dearly miss, by the way–and they took my supermarket’s discount thing as having a plan…no fine. But yes, they want to fine you if they can.

    • Wasn’t that part of medicare? If you choose to be a part of the government plan, then they are allowed to make whatever rules they want. Just like if I choose to belong to Aetna I have to follow their rules or go somewhere else. ObamaCare takes the choice of going somewhere else away from us. All of the public and private plans will all look the same. That’s not commerce, that’s socialism.

  4. How can the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian Tribes” be so construed as to include individuals?
    Nations are not individuals.
    states are not individuals.
    Indian Tribes are not individuals.
    If there is any integrity left in the Supreme Court, it will be a 9-0 decision to declare the law UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

  5. Seems like it should be a slam dunk for constitutionalists, but that is not necessarily the way things will turn out. In 2005 Mark Levin wrote a book “Men in Black — How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”. It will scare the bejesus out of you and won’t give you a warm fuzzy feeling that these justices will follow the constitution rather than their own personal ideology. Never forget it was the Supreme Court that upheld Jim Crow laws as constitutional.

    We need to get a commitment from all of our presidential nominees that they will repeal Obamacare no matter what the supremes decide.

  6. The real legal nightmare will be if it gets upheld. This is dangerous territory we’re in right now. I for one am continuing to prepare for societal collapse.

    • We are preparing too William. Kennedy is the same justice who joined with the progressives on the Kelo and EPA decisions, so it could happen. We are already living in a post-constitutional America because of the radical decisions of activist judges. A decision upholding Obamacare as constitutional will be the end of federalism and, I fear, the beginning of another civil war.

    • William, I agree that this is dangerous territory we’re in. I am getting that same “sucker punched” feeling again that I got when BarryCare was being voted on.
      We are truely seeing the American way of life melt in front of us.

  7. If it’s overturned, Barry will play the victim card during the last few months of the campaign…”I tried to give everyone health care, but they took it away from you”…thus adding the Supreme Court to his long list of “evil-doers” (the Republicans, big business, banks, the wealthy, etc.) — just someone else to blame.

    • No doubt we will see Granny getting shoved off a cliff again Mr. T.

      With the exception of Repubs and SCOTUS the rest still give him money and for the life of me, I do not understand why. Even with the bailouts Obama still blames the banks for the ecomomic woes and sides with OWS in their apparent hatred of these institutions, continues to give big business exemptions while bemoaning their very existance, villifies
      the “corporate jet owners ” and other evil wealthy ( who dont pay their fair share!!) AND THEY ALL STILL GIVE HIM MONEY.

      Would someone be so kind as to enlighten me ?

  8. We’ve been down this road before. Remember the Campaign Finance rules that was sent to the court for them to strike down? That didn’t work out so well for us. If the court upholds it congress will have a much harder time repealing it since it will have the court’s seal of approval.