U.S. Supreme Court dumps AZ voter law

The Bugle: PHOENIX -- Saying federal law trumps state, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona cannot demand proof of citizenship from individuals who use a federal voter registration form.

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority rejected arguments by state Attorney General Tom Horne that Arizona is free to demand more than the federal form requires.

It mandates only that those registering to vote sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that they are citizens and eligible. But Horne argued that Arizona is free to reject those forms unless applicants also submit actual proof of citizenship, something mandated by a 2004 voter-approved law.

Monday's ruling specifically requires state and local election officials to accept -- and, more to the point -- to register those individuals who use the form prescribed by the National Voter Registration Act even if they provide no proof of citizenship.

But Horne insisted Monday the ruling was only a setback. He noted the court said Arizona can petition the federal Election Assistance Commission to alter its form to allow Arizona to add that proof-of-citizenship requirement.

But Nina Perales, attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, pointed out Arizona made such a request in 2005 and was rejected by the four-member commission on a 2-2 vote.

ere is no reason to think Arizona would be successful on a second try, particularly because Arizona cannot point to a single instance of a non-citizen registering to vote or trying to register to vote using the federal form,' she told Capitol Media Services. "With no facts on its side, Arizona cannot carry its burden of providing that registrants should include additional paperwork with their applications.'

Secretary of State Ken Bennett acknowledged when the case was argued last year he has no evidence people who are not citizens are registering to vote, either now with the federal form or before the 2004 proof-of-citizenship requirement.

Horne, however, said he intends to try again.

But that is likely to prove fruitless: There are no commissioners as the U.S. Senate has yet to confirm any presidential appointees. Horne said, though, that could lead him back to the Supreme Court.

Monday's ruling does give Arizona a bit of wiggle room. The justices said the state can refuse to register even someone using the federal form -- but only if election officials have "information in their possession establishing the applicant's ineligibility.'

And nothing in Monday's ruling prohibits the state from requiring citizenship proof from those who use state-created forms to register.

Local election officials have said the vast majority of those who do register use that state form. That, however, now could change.

Perales said the decision provides a new tool for groups conducting registration drives to now sign up new voters using that federal form -- and without having to get applicants to submit one of the documents that Arizona considers acceptable. That includes an Arizona driver's license, passport or birth certificate.

The 2004 law requires both proof of citizenship to register and identification to cast a ballot at the polls. Foes challenged both.

The courts sided with the state on the ID at polling places requirement. Foes of the Arizona law never appealed that decision, and it was not an issue in Monday's ruling.
Horne, in his arguments to the high court, did not dispute the National Voting Rights Act requires states to "accept and use' the federal voter registration form. But he argued that does not conflict with Arizona law.

"Because only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, Proposition 200's evidence-of-citizenship requirement is consistent with the NVRA's express goals,' Horne argued to the high court. "Congress did not intend the NVRA to bar states from properly assessing whether an applicant who registers to vote is eligible to vote.'
And he said Arizona can add its own proof-of-citizenship requirements on top of everything required in the federal form.

Scalia dismissed that argument as nonsensical.

"For example, a government (decree) that 'civil servants shall accept government IOUs for payment of salaries' does not invite the response, 'sure, we'll accept IOUs -- if you pay us a 10 percent down payment in cash,' ' he wrote.

He also pointed out that the federal law says a state shall "ensure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote in an election ... if the valid voter registration form is postmarked' by a certain deadline.

"Yet Arizona reads the phrase 'accept and use' ... as permitting it to reject a completed Federal Form if the applicant does not submit additional information required by state law,' Scalia wrote. "That reading cannot be squared with Arizona's obligation.'

The court said it was not disturbing the requirement that those who use the state-designed form -- the majority of those now registered to vote -- must provide proof of citizenship.

"States retain the flexibility to design and use their own registration forms,' Scalia wrote.

"But the Federal Form provides a backstop: No matter what procedural hurdles a state's own form imposes, the Federal Form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available.'

What states may not do, Scalia wrote, is demand that those who register using the Federal Form provide everything the state registration form requires.

"If that is so, the Federal Form ceases to perform any meaningful function, and would be a feeble means of increasing the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for federal office,' he wrote.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to determine the qualifications for voting in federal elections. And Thomas said that "necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.'

Gov. Jan Brewer, who was secretary of state -- and therefore chief election officer -- during much of the time the 2004 law was being challenge, brushed aside the significance of Monday's decision.

"From what I understand, (it's) a very narrow ruling,' she said, pointing out that Arizona remains free to require proof of citizenship in its own forms. Brewer said it will be up to Horne and Bennett to decide what to do now.

Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services

 

Technorati Tags: Arizona,immigration,law,voting,voter fraud,citizenship,Scalia,SCOTUS,Jan Brewer,Obamland,Federal law,State law,Constitution,elections,illegals,illegal Immigration,Supreme Court,non-citzens,Obamaland,NVRA,ID,states rights,Clarence Thomas

KILLING OBAMACARE BEFORE IT KILLS US – Part 1: The Political Battlefield

Part 1:  The Political Battlefield

By: AJ  -  Hat Tip: MJ

There are two battlefields in the war against Obamacare.  There is the political battlefield which gave us Obamacare and there is a second battlefield where Obamacare can be made moot on a state-by-state basis.

The political battlefield requires us to organize and educate the voting public so that, in November, we can ‘repeal’ the corruptor-crats who support Obamacare and replace them with politicians who will vote to eliminate it in its entirety.

At the same time, the state battlefield must explore viable solutions to kill Obamacare by making it moot – by showing why it is legally not applicable.

This article will discuss the war waged on the political battlefield and part two will cover the state battlefield.

POLITICAL BATTLEFIELD

The lame stream media propaganda machine is in full force and they want people to believe that support for Obamacare is rising.  Check out Yahoo!’s home-page headline three days after the Supreme Court decision, “Ruling Boosts Support for Obamacare”.  When you click on the link, Reuters’ title is, “Ruling ups support for Obama healthcare, still unpopular”.

The truth is, a recent Washington Post and ABC News poll finds that only 26% support Obamacare, and 67% are opposed to either the entire law or the individual mandate (now called a tax by Chief Coward Roberts).

People are organizing and we must articulate the facts, establish the narrative and spread the truth.  FreedomWorks, the Tea Party, 912 groups and others are leading this effort.  Educating everyone - especially our youth and our elderly – is crucial and we only have four months in which to do it.

For example, do our elderly know that in 2014, Obamacare cuts $1.05 Trillion from Medicare over the first 10 years and $4.95 Trillion over the first 20 years?  (i.e. Obamacare destroys Medicare)  Do they know that Obamacare is like the government-run healthcare system in Britain that euthanizes 130,000 elderly people every year?  (i.e. Obamacare leads to euthanasia)  These are important, compelling and simple facts that our elderly need to know.

Another example… do all Americans know that Medicaid already covers the poor and disabled?  Obamacare does not help the poor, but it taxes people who make $9,500 and above.  Politicians use “the poor” as pawns to push their agenda; they count on the ignorance of uninformed Americans.

Perhaps our youth can best understand the funding source of Obamacare by its similarity to the mechanism used for Social Security.  Stated simply, young people are forced to pay into another government system that they’re not using.  It will undoubtedly be bankrupt by the time they need it themselves.  Look at Social Security; it will be completely bankrupt in 25 years according to the CBO.

A September 2011 poll found that 71% of the people believe Social Security has major problems (49%) or is in a state of crisis (22%).  And when 18 to 35 year olds were asked if it is accurate to describe the Social Security system as a “monstrous lie” and a “failure”, 42% agreed – the highest percentage of all age groups.

The narrative for our youth may be quite simple… Obamacare is like Social Security; it forces you to pay into a government system that will surely be bankrupt by the time you really need it.  It is imperative that Americans know that before Obamacare, people had the right to choose whether or not they wanted to spend their money on healthcare; now everyone is forced by the government to spend their money on it.

Young people keep hearing “free healthcare for all” from the lame stream media and they have been dumbed-down enough not to realize they will be forced to pay for this the rest of their lives if Obamacare stands.  And the amount they will be forced to pay far exceeds any expense they may incur for contraceptives.

So we can start spreading the truth right now – today – to inform people and motivate them to register (i.e. activate) and vote against the corrupto-crats who support Obamacare.  We know the legislation contains many tyrannical provisions, such as eliminating our 4^th Amendment right to privacy, but providing simple phrases that people can relate to is what may open their minds to help them understand the imminent impact of Obamacare on their lives.

The goal on the political battlefield is to have enough elected officials (in Congress and the Presidency) to repeal Obamacare via reconciliation.  Recall that reconciliation was the method Democrats used to pass Obamacare - before we booted them out of Congress in 2010 for having foisted this job-killing, liberty-ending, economy-collapsing, healthcare-destroying monstrosity onto the American people.  But, as Terresa Monroe-Hamilton correctly points out in her article, “Obama Lies, Taxes Rise”…

“I know the Republicans have sworn to repeal Obamacare, but until conservatives control the Senate and House and have taken back the White House, I don’t see it happening. Even then I have grave doubts because I keep hearing “repeal and replace.” What the hell? Just repeal the damn thing and forget replacing it.”…

“Roberts screwed the pooch on this one, now we have to roll up our sleeves and realize that no branch of our government supports us.”

This is why we must also fight this war on the state battlefield.  We must kill Obamacare before it kills us and the war waged on the state battlefield could very well prevent Progressive politicians on both sides of the aisle from ever attempting to take over our healthcare again.

Stay tuned for part two…

Related:

Supreme Court health care ruling: Where states stand

American Thinker: Supreme Court Helps Obama Fulfill Dreams from His Communist Mentor

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

Obama Lies, Taxes Rise

The Shock Heard Around the World May Save America – Updated

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare,taxes,tax increases,repeal Obama,economic crisis,fundamental transforamtion of America,jewel of socialism,stand-up America,Supreme Court rulings

Obama Lies, Taxes Rise

The People’s Cube – OBAMACARE: Let’s Celebrate the Sweet Road to Serfdom

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton – TheNoisyRoom

The Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare came as a severe shock to me as I am sure it did to all of you. I was literally ill after I heard the decision. It has taken me a couple of days to settle down enough to write on this and I am sure that my take will differ from many of my colleagues who are willing to read into Justice Roberts’ betrayal some sort of Constitutional maneuvering. Even among conservatives at NoisyRoom there is disagreement on this. But that is what makes being free even sweeter. We can each have our own opinions, for now at least.

Let me state that I don’t give a crap whether Roberts was trying to finesse the Constitution or promote his own reputation on the backsides of hard working Americans – he betrayed those he serves. He put himself above Americans and instead of doing his job and acting as legal arbiter in a protective role, he dumped it back on Americans to either sink or swim in a poisonous sea of Obama-crafted regulation. He could have handled the Commerce Clause issue and Obamacare at the same time, but that is not what happened. Roberts did ensure two things though… The first is that he will be remembered as a Progressive coward – that he took the self-serving way out, no matter how many intellectuals try to spin it otherwise. The second is that he has energized the Tea Party and awakened a giant who will surely deliver a mandate in November sending Obama and the other Marxists packing.

Does anyone out there genuinely believe this is what the Founders had envisioned? Passing the largest tax increase in American history that if not stopped, will surely break the back of a once great nation. While putting into place an IRS Gestapo, 16,500 and more strong that will act as a jack booted thuggish arm of the Obama administration. Taxation will be thoroughly (even more than now) weaponized and will be used to punish enemies of the state. Remind you of anyone? Comply or else and everyone is a criminal. How very Atlas Shrugged.

From Rush Limbaugh:

“Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world and the people who were characterizing it as such were right and were telling the truth,” Limbaugh said.

“The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts said ‘it’s not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. Not our job.’ Well what about when we are deceived?” he asked.

“The court upheld a law that was not what we were told it would be. What has been upheld here is fraud and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama’s domestic army. That is what we face now.”

Video: Rush Reacts To SCOTUS Decision On Obamacare: Largest Tax Increase In The History Of The World

Somewhere between 18 and 22 new taxes will be levied because of this ruling. Some begin next year. I don’t know about you, but we are having trouble making it now and we are already worried about the heavy food inflation we are seeing here. I definitely wonder how we will make it with these new taxes if they come into play. I know the Republicans have sworn to repeal Obamacare, but until conservatives control the Senate and House and have taken back the White House, I don’t see it happening. Even then I have grave doubts because I keep hearing “repeal and replace.” What the hell? Just repeal the damn thing and forget replacing it. Let the free market do its job and keep the government out of it.

I see this whole tax situation akin to the Jizya tax placed on infidels as they do under Shariah law. That is what this feels like. Convert or pay the tax or die. Well, I will not submit. I will fight for this next election to see Romney elected. He wasn’t my first choice and he is Progressive light, but he’s not a communist and I believe he is a moral man. I will fight to help us regain the Senate and expand in the House. It’s life or death and as Paul Ryan said, this November is our last chance. We dare not fail or America as we know and love her is over.

Obamacare will add $1.15 trillion to the national debt. Americans need to confront that and understand what that means. There is no coming back from that. We are bankrupt and it will finish us off. Forget about a Depression, this will be a financial Armageddon. As a matter of fact, there is an argument to be made that that boat has already sailed because the US now carries a mind numbing $15 trillion in debt and another $65 trillion in unfunded liabilities related to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Obamacare is the final nail in the fiscal coffin of America and Obama knows it. If implemented, Cloward and Piven will succeed so massively not even they could have dreamed of attaining such complete success.

Consider the following:

• Congressional Budget Office report says ”Affordable Care Act” could cause 20 million private sector employees to lose their health care coverage
• Full CBO report (PDF)
• Study finds “Affordable Care Act” will impose more than $500 billion in tax increases on U.S. private sector
• Study finds “Affordable Care Act” will impose 18 separate tax increases
• Study finds “Affordable Care Act” will increase budget deficit by more than $1.15 trillion
• Full study (PDF)
• 85% of small businesses are not hiring new employees, and nearly half of those businesses say the potential cost of health care regulations is a major reason
• 46% of American doctors say they may leave the profession if federal government takes over the U.S. health care system
• Top doctor’s chilling claim: British National Health System kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
• “Up to 20,000 people have died needlessly early after being denied cancer drugs on the NHS”
• A useful analysis of the folly of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion from the Wall Street Journal

My opinion is not unique. It is shared by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. All of whom I admire and respect. The decision was lawless and unconstitutional. Allen West puts it best:

“The United States Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by extending the power of the United States Congress to tax Americans’ behavior. This is a sad day for Americans, as they will be taxed to pay for benefits they may not need or want as part of the insurance they are forced to buy. With this decision, Congress has been granted infinite taxation power, and there are no longer any limits on what the federal government can tax its citizens to do.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will hit the middle class especially hard, as hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as businesses try to avoid the penalties and costs created by the healthcare law. The healthcare law will cost trillions of dollars, raise costs for employers and create huge incentives for them to drop health insurance.

Benjamin Franklin did indeed state, ‘In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.’ However, Dr. Franklin never envisioned the federal government would use its power of taxation to punish people for not purchasing health care. Today, individual sovereignty in America has been defeated.” – Congressman Allen West

This horrific ruling (one in which a 1st grader could have made a more informed constitutional decision than Roberts) will empower the most arrogant man in the world even further. If he is not booted out of office in November, there will be no stopping his ‘change.’ Even then, the damage he will do as a lame duck will be thunderous.

Video:  Barack Obama: The Most Arrogant Man in the World

The power to tax is the power to destroy and so Obamacare will. It will destroy jobs, what’s left of our economy, our sovereignty and our defenses. It will finish off the Constitution. What Obama denied as a tax, is THE tax of all time and those that feel it won’t affect them are dangerously delusional.

Time to fight – time to grow up and get out there and get everyone you know to vote. It’s mandate time. Roberts screwed the pooch on this one, now we have to roll up our sleeves and realize that no branch of our government supports us. We have to make sure this next election is a blow out. Stand up and scream, “I will not comply!” Vote the arrogant bastard out of office and let us begin to heal.

Obama lies, taxes rise…

Video:  Experts on SCOTUS – GBTV

The Roberts’ Supreme Court Ruling Was the Shock Heard Around the World That Just Might Save America If It Woke People Up and Gets Them Involved and Voting on Election Day - November 6, 2012

Technorati Tags: taxes,road to serfdom,ObamaCare,Liar in Chief,liar liar,John Roberts,Supreme Court,Supreme Court Rulings,Roberts' Court,Election 2012,2012 Election,enemies within

The Shock Heard Around the World May Save America – Updated

By Ask Marion

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) may just have fired the second shot this week that should shake every freedom loving American to their core. The temporary silence of the media, both MSM and alternative, was deafening after the Robert’s Court ruling upholding ObamaCare and then upholding the individual mandate as a tax caught everyone by surprise; the White House, the blogosphere, most so-called experts and the liberal mainstream media. Everyone had comments and responses prepared for several anticipated outcomes, but none expected this.

Rumor has it that Roberts received pressure, even threats, from undisclosed sources and caved, some say he moved to the dark side just this past week and some say Roberts has revealed himself to have real concern for the legacy of the Court that bears his name. Many feel that this ObamaCare ruling was the signature for ‘his’ court that he felt he needed.

“The Volokh Conspiracy”: Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.

Then there are the speculation that Roberts is a genius, Was Judge Roberts Just Playing Bridge? or as Michael Savage said: Roberts Epilepsy Medication Affects His Cognition and affected this decision?

"Roberts is a genius": Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution says to raise revenue (taxes) a bill MUST originate in House of Representatives. This version of ObamaCare originated in the ways and means committee of the Senate! Did the Supreme Court miss that? Or is Justice Roberts sly as a fox?

And then there are those who wonder if the all American boyish looking Chief Justice has crossed over to the dark side, either recently or perhaps he was always a closet Progressive… or worse?

The word "tax" appears 413 times in the SCOTUS’s opinion #fullrepeal If you don't buy health insurance the IRS will take your tax refunds, so good luck with that! Charles Krauthammer said Roberts’ definition of this being a tax was very thin.

Some pondered since this is now a taxation issue, in light of other SCOTUS cases this year on equal protection in tax law, can Obama still give waivers? I would say no!

Palin tweeted: Congress has the power to rescind taxes, I expect them to do this after the recess in July. #Obamatax Later on with Greta Van Susteren on ‘On the Record’ Palin said, “This is a tax on all the people. Chief Justice John Roberts just shown the light on one of the big ObamaCare lies being perpetrated by President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and HHS Sec Kathleen Sibelius.”

Then there are serious concerns about the precedent now set for other horrific “taxes”, for anything they choose based, on this decision… maybe for breathing will be next? All citizens are now taxed for living here – except of course Muslims who are exempt because their religion doesn’t allow them to buy insurance. The Amish are also exempt. Some have said this is the dhimmitude tax. If you convert to Islam, you won’t have to pay. Some have suggested a new “We are all Muslims now” program; watering down both the effects of radical Islam by infiltration and cutting the funding for ObamaCare based on religious freedom.  US Catholic Church leaders are rejecting the ObamaCare Court Ruling.

This is a complicated decision and will take more than a few hours or even a few days to decipher and study. For those of you wanting to take a shot at it. Here are the links below to the 193 page decision.

28 June 2012

supreme court obamacare opinion .pdf

click here to download 193 page .pdf [776 kb]
====
click here to download directly from the supreme court website
or
click here to go to the supreme court 2011 term opinions of the court page and look for:
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
====

www.supremecourt.gov
====

After the initial shock of the virtually unconsidered ruling settled in the comments began:

"A Dark Day for American Liberty".....Statement by VA AG Ken Cuccinelli

This is a dark day for the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law. This is a dark day for American liberty.

This decision goes against the very principle that America has a federal government of limited powers; a principle that the Founding Fathers clearly wrote into the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was meant to restrict the power of government precisely for the purpose of protecting your liberty and mine from the overreaching hand of the federal government.

This unprecedented decision says that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy private goods or face fines - a power it has never had in American history, and a power King George III and Parliament didn't have over us when we were mere subjects of Great Britain. Since the federal government itself could never articulate to the court a constitutional limit to this power, Congress has gained an unlimited power to force citizens to buy anything.

I am disappointed with the court's ruling and with the unprecedented attack on American liberty the president and the previous Congress have created with this law.

Stay tuned - I will be providing more analysis on this in the coming hours, as well as next steps.

Rush Limbaugh: “There is nothing constitutional about this law (ObamaCare)!” Neal Boortz said, “Here come the death panels! and the doctor’s shortages”

Glenn Beck took the extreme step on radio today to actually demonstrate, on a pretend human being, what medicine will look like under Obamacare in the near future. Stu & Pat get a lesson from "Dr." Beck to experience what the challenges of being a "real" doctor are. Warning, the video is fairly graphic.

And longtime D.C. political operative considers today’s Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare a good thing in the fight to defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Here’s why:

The Obamacare ruling is good news for us. Real good news. It’s 2010 all over again now. Swing states will shift over to Romney in most cases. Trust me on this. We’ve done the polling. The data is conclusive on this. It’s a huge tax. We got Obama lying.

Again. The Tea Party movement, which was as real and powerful a political movement as I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, is back in play. That scares the hell out of the Obama White House. You just got a bunch of Dems sweating hard over their re-election. The Republican Party will now be a lot more focused and clearly conservative and that’s exactly what they need to be this time around. We must make the election a clear divide between one side and the other and this Obamacare ruling has forced that to happen.

And the initial reports I’m getting are telling me there was a lot more clever going on inside that decision than the initial reaction will indicate. It’s the Obama Tax now. And states were given an out. The entire law is a big ass convoluted mess and the ruling has reinforced that fact. Obama will have to defend something he doesn’t understand, and Romney can now sit back and just repeat over and over again “repeal-repeal-repeal”.

The giant has woken up. Country needed a hard kick in the ass to remind us what is at stake in November. Now we are truly ready to fight! Read full article: Here

Many including Senator Coburn have Repudiated the Chief Justice: He did Not ‘Enforce the Constitution’ Today, ‘Is On The Wrong Side’ In Ruling. Some have even mentioned the possibility of impeaching Supreme Court Justices, but in reality the chances of that moving forward would be like the impeachment of President Obama himself with the present Congress in place.

This decision was an overall a win for the Obama administration but, there is always a silver lining if you dig deep enough. There are five (actually six) good things about the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision: It made taxation the panacea for constitutional questions; The liberal judges inadvertently brought Federalism back; Roberts got the liberals to actually set up a limit on the Commerce Clause; This deflates Occupy Wall Street’s and the Wisconsin protestor types’ biggest cause so Mitt Romney will now have a much easier time defeating Barack Obama… plus Obama now owns this massive regressive tax increase. Plus the decision also allows states to choose ‘not’ to increase their Medicaid rolls if they choose to turn down the new related federal funds and develop their own programs. Former Clinton advisor and author (most recent book: Screwed!), Dick Morris says that might be the biggest win of all. Morris also says this win will ultimately defeat Obama.

Tammy Bruce: This==> Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War By Gutting Commerce Clause

Several states have already chosen not to take the so-called new funds or return their ObamaCare grants and ‘not’ to expand their Medicaid programs or develop exchanges, because in the end, after the first year it will cost the states millions… if not more eventually. Alaska is the only state who did not apply for a grant and Florida, Louisiana and New Hampshire quickly returned theirs. Virginia, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are among the list of other states who have or are expected to decline or return their funds and develop their own programs (probably most of the 27 states involved in the Supreme Court case plus Virginia who had their own case will decline the funds ). Between the states who are opting out, businesses who will keep their employee rolls to below 50 or drop their health insurance coverage all together and just pay the fine and individuals who will not purchase insurance until they are sick and need it, funding and the implementation of ObamaCare looks precarious. (But remember ObamaCare does give the IRS the ability to charge you directly by withholding monies due from your tax returns.)

The Supreme Court decision to uphold ObamaCare and the uphold the mandate as a tax leaves small business owners with the same uncertainty that has kept them from expanding and hiring and has caused many more large businesses to move offshore equating to a continued stalemate in the growth of jobs and the U.S. economy, which will both hurt President Obama’s re-election prospects. Small business owners still hope that ObamaCare will be repealed either by Congress or next January if (when) Romney is sworn in as President, but until then they will continue in the same mode of uncertainty they have now operated under for almost 3-years. “Obamacare is bad medicine, it is bad policy, and when I’m President, the bad news of Obamacare will be over”, said Romney after hearing the ruling. He has previously vowed to give all 50 states and U.S. territories waivers the first day of his administration and then focus on repealing it completely.  If Obama is re-elected most small business owners will either choose to drop the medical coverage for their employees and pay the fine (which has always been the goal of the Obama White House to ultimately create a single-payer system) or they will keep their employee total number below 50, using outside contractors to do work instead. Large companies will also hold on until November to see if Romney is elected. But if Obama is re-elected you will see a mass exodus offshore costing the U.S. even more jobs and continuing the downward spiral of the American economy.

And in the end no matter how you look at it, if you ‘really’ look at it, America cannot afford ObamaCare. Socialized medicine is one of the benefits that is killing the European Union and we only have to look as far as Canada to realize that the care is inferior to what we have now. And for anyone who still does not believe that there is an ulterior motive to ObamaCare, amazingly an Obama administration actually found the unsustainable status quo cheaper than Obamacare… but they moved ahead anyway.

So the GOP may look back on today (June 12th 2012)… this week and realize that they owe John Roberts and his court a debt of gratitude for revitalizing the tea party and re-energizing the American Spirit. In the end… the problem is not Chief Justice John Glover Roberts… it is President Barack Hussein Obama and it is the responsibility of the American people through elections to get rid of him and other Progressives in government if he is not what we want and the opportunity to replace both Obama and ObamaCare is only months away. With the new momentum created by the highly unpopular Supreme Court rulings that have come down this week plus the encouragement of the vote to hold AG Eric Holder in contempt, things are looking better than most expected.

The people have certainly already spoken, as reflected in @MittRomney‘s fundraising numbers (in one day) since the SCOTUS ruling came down. THREE AND HALF MILLION DOLLARS and counting in small individual contributions and some 49,000 people are reported to have registered to vote on June 12th 2012.  Seems the court may have awakened a sleeping giant and in the end this unpopular and questionable ruling may just save America.

We now need to replace the word Obamacare with Obamatax

Related:

Beck GBTV Video: Reaction to Court Upholding ObamaCare -  Glenn is encouraging everyone to help spread the word and to get people registered to vote - On "Real News from The Blaze" last night, the panel discussed some of the crass and surprising reactions from Democrats following the Supreme Court's ruling. Will their actions affect the outcome of the coming election? Watch the full segment HERE. 

Thanks Obamacare: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit

Palin: Thank you, SCOTUS!

Chief Justice Roberts Is a Genius?

Michael Savage: Roberts Epilepsy Medication Affects His Cognition

Krauthammer: Roberts "Concocted This Finesse" To Save Court's Reputation

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare…

“Death Panel” Three Years Later

Taxation and regulation under the health care Act

Was Judge Roberts Just Playing Bridge?

11TH HOUR? Did Justice Roberts Change His Obamacare Vote At The Eleventh Hour?

Leftist TV Networks Gush Over Chief Justice Roberts: 'The Man of the Hour' Who 'Might Have Saved' the Supreme Court

Senate GOP Will Use Reconciliation in Attempt to Repeal Obamacare

Obamacare ruling: The liberal Apotheosis of John Roberts

Obamacare Has Literally Replaced the Constitution

The Crucifixion of Chief Justice John Glover Roberts

Health-Reform is Constitutional: Here are the Tax Implications (Taxes and more taxes)

What ‘Planned Parenthood’ is to parenthood, Obamacare is to care!

And remember when the Republican leadership said they would not spike the ball should this decision go there way?  Well as usual the other side is doing just that:

While surfing the Obama campaign’s Twitter this evening, we came across the following:

Can’t read it? No problem. Let us help you out with this zoomed in version:

For those who don’t remember, “BFD” stands for “Big F***ing Deal,” which is a reference to a line that Vice President Joe Biden was caught uttering in Obama’s ear while the latter signed Obamacare into law. In other words, the Twitter feed for a sitting President just used an obscenity.

At first we thought this was probably the result of someone at Obama campaign headquarters having one too many celebratory beverages, or possibly the result of the account getting hacked. Unfortunately, not only is it not that, but it’s a deliberate fundraising ploy. The Obama campaign has literally created shirts to the effect of this simple Tweet, and the place to buy them is what the link leads to. Not convinced? Here’s a picture:

Dignity in victory is apparently a nonexistent concept at Obama campaign headquarters. And apparently this isn’t even the first time they’ve tweeted this exact message, with these exact shirts. Dignity in general may be a foreign concept as well.

H/T Twitchy and the Blaze

Solution: Repeal and replace Obama as well as Obamacare!

Freedom Works:

The Supreme Court this morning upheld Obamacare. They allowed the law to stand, including the individual mandate.

The Court has, in essence, given this decision back to Congress and the people, where political power ultimately resides.

The House of Representatives has done its duty in voting to repeal Obamacare. The American people have also spoken: They do not support Obamacare and fear its consequences more every day. In fact, a recent poll shows that two-thirds of Americans favor repeal of all or some part of the law.

With the outcome of the decision, The Heritage Foundation, America's leading conservative policy organization, has rallied and put together a Repeal Obamacare Project to raise the necessary funds to tirelessly fight for repeal.

We cannot allow Obamacare to stand, regardless of what the Court says. It must be repealed.

Your support is critical. Donate today to The Heritage Foundation's Repeal Obamacare Project.

Thank you for your support of conservative principles and the ideas that have made America great.

Sincerely,

Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
President, The Heritage Foundation

A vote has already been scheduled in the House of Representatives by Eric Cantor for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) for July 9th, and remember now that this is a tax issue we now only need 51 Senators to vote for repeal. But the big focus for the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare(ObamaTax) and the repeal of the Progressive ideology gripping our country is the repeal of Obama himself, his policies and his team in November at the ballot box. This video is absolutely the truth, the final verdict, the future of our country is up to us… and the moment is now! It is now in our hands to repeal ObamaCare in January 2013 and to do that we must elect Republicans far and wide who will repeal it. We have no choice this year but to win in November, and I mean win all around the country. We have to win Congressional seats and Senate seats and we must win the presidency. We don’t have any choice – the Supreme Court has seen to that. Time to put the petty bickering aside, get over the Romney wasn’t my first choice issue and the considerations of not voting because Romney is a Mormon or wanting to make a statement by voting for a 3rd party candidate . What is at stake is much bigger than any of that!

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare,Supreme Court Rulings,John Roberts,taxes,death panels,rationing,Rush Limbaugh,Glenn Beck,Neal Boortz,solutions,doctor shortages,IRS,Tammy Bruce,Freedom Works,Repeal ObamaCare Project,Michael Savage,vote,ObamaTax

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare…

In a landmark 5-4 ruling, the court upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of Obamacare...[Full Story]

GOP Vows Repeal as Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare

Obamacare - The Latest News

Rep. Poe to Newsmax: US Can’t Afford Obamacare

6/28/2012 3:08:20 PM

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare, Congress must act quickly to repeal the legislation and stop the government from taking over patients health-care choices, Rep. Ted Poe told Newsmax in an exclusive interview Thursday.

Attorney Gen. Bondi: Our President Has Failed

6/28/2012 2:59:42 PM

The representative system of government only works when leaders are honest with the people, Florida Attorney Gen. Pam Bondi Thursday. The most sobering part of the Supreme Court decision (on Obamacare) is that it set Constitutional limits.

Attorney Gen. Cuccinelli: Ruling About Liberty, Not Healthcare

6/28/2012 2:52:58 PM

Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli found the silver lining in Thursday s Supreme Court ruling, upholding the Affordable Care Act. This was about liberty and not about healthcare, Cuccinelli told Newsmax.TV.

Rep. Gardner to Newsmax: Election Will Right Court Mistake

6/28/2012 2:24:48 PM

Rep. Cory Gardner on Thursday denounced the U.S. Supreme Court s decision to uphold Obamacare, saying it gives the government an unprecedented power to tax Americans.

Rush: Obamacare 'Largest Tax Increase in the History of the World’

6/28/2012 2:16:55 PM

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare Thursday morning is an act of deception. Obamacare is simply a massive tax increase, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said.

Rubio: Obamacare Is ‘Middle Class Tax Increase’

6/28/2012 2:05:47 PM

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a rising star in the Republican Party, said the Supreme Court ruling confirms that Obamacare is essentially a Middle Class Tax Increase, and predicted opponents will win new support for repealing the healthcare law.

Cassidy to Newsmax: Americans ‘Deliberately Deceived’

6/28/2012 2:00:21 PM

Rep. Bill Cassidy accused President Barack Obama Thursday of deliberately deceiving the American people about the individual mandate in Obamacare, saying the Supreme Court decision had finally revealed what it really is a new tax on Americans.

Dershowitz: The Healthcare Decision Is Good in the Short Term, Questionable in the Long Term

6/28/2012 1:56:36 PM

Alan M. Dershowitz's Perspective: When former President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts to become Chief Justice of the United States, a newly elected senator named Barak Obama voted against his confirmation.

Pelosi Calls Ruling a ‘Victory,’ Invokes Kennedy

6/28/2012 1:52:14 PM

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi invoked the memory of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy on Thursday as she hailed the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare as exciting and a victory for America's families.

WSJ: Court Ruling on Obamacare Vindicates Hospital Consolidation, Investments

6/28/2012 1:37:35 PM

The Supreme Court decision to uphold President Barack Obama s Affordable Care Act vindicates the hospital industry in its more than two year-strategy of consolidation and investment to control costs and gain better bargaining position with payers, the Wall Street Journal...

Tea Party Leader Martin to Newsmax: Court ‘Got It Wrong’

6/28/2012 1:32:16 PM

The head of the Tea Party Patriots said Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong to uphold Obamacare, and pledged that her group would help Americans correct this decision by repealing the law.

Gingrich: Obamacare Repeal 'Defining Issue of Fall Campaign'

6/28/2012 1:26:58 PM

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of President Barack Obama s healthcare overhaul will do little to reduce the uncertainty that is preventing employers filling job openings, former GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich predicted. Instead that doubt will continue at least...

Rep. Gardner: SCOTUS Decision 'Unprecedented'

6/28/2012 1:26:53 PM

Rep. Cory Gardner sounded a popular Republican theme Thursday in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare.

Rep. Gohmert Calls for Justice Kagan’s Impeachment

6/28/2012 1:21:08 PM

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert called the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare “illegitimate” and said Justice Elena Kagan should be impeached because she served as U.S. Solicitor General when the law was passed.

WSJ: Drugmakers Will Pay Billions in Fees, Price Cuts Due to Healthcare Ruling

6/28/2012 1:01:55 PM

The Supreme Court s decision to uphold Obamacare gives drug companies more certainty, The Wall Street Journal reported, even though drugmakers will spend billions of dollars in fees and price cuts. Beginning in 2014, individuals will be required to have health insurance...

Romney: I Will Repeal Obamacare as President

6/28/2012 12:56:03 PM

Reacting to the Supreme Court decision to uphold Obamacare, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he agreed with the dissenting justices and will act to repeal Obamacare if he is elected president. I agree with the dissent, and what the court did not do on the...

McConnell: Court Blew Obama’s Cover By Declaring Healthcare Overhaul a Tax

6/28/2012 12:41:20 PM

The Supreme Court blew the cover of President Barack Obama and the Democrats when it ruled that the provisions of the healthcare law are indeed a tax, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Newsmax in an exclusive interview.

Court Ruling Lets More Than $800 Billion in Higher Taxes Proceed

6/28/2012 12:36:35 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the bulk of the 2010 healthcare law means wealthy investors may sell assets before the end of the year as taxes in the overhaul remain in place and will take effect next year.

Roberts Based Ruling on Judicial Restraint

6/28/2012 12:36:02 PM

If the U.S. Supreme Court had wanted to make history, it could have: Striking down the individual mandate in the health-care law would have been the most weighty Supreme Court ruling since Franklin Roosevelt s first New Deal was ruled unconstitutional three-quarters of a...

Obamacare Ruling Helps Most, but Not All, Healthcare Niches

6/28/2012 12:33:16 PM

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold President Barack Obama's historic overhaul is expected to be a boon to most of the healthcare industry by making coverage affordable for millions of uninsured Americans.

Kudlow: Obamacare Taxes Bad for Economic Growth — and All Families

6/28/2012 12:26:46 PM

Twenty new or higher taxes across-the-board are bad for economic growth, bad for job hiring, bad for investors, and bad for families. A tax is a tax is a tax, according to Judge Roberts.

Huckabee: GOP Sweep Needed to Repeal Obamacare

6/28/2012 12:19:09 PM

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee denounced the U.S. Supreme Court s decision upholding the Affordable Health Care Act and called for donations to his super PAC to make sure that our Congress and the White House are in the right hands through a GOP sweep of the polls in...

Insurance Group: Obamacare Ruling Won't Lower Costs

6/28/2012 12:15:11 PM

A Supreme Court decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) won't do anything to lower healthcare costs, Janet Trautwein, CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU), said Thursday. The Supreme Court...

Bill McCollum: War Against Obamacare 'Has Just Begun'

6/28/2012 12:13:09 PM

Former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a leading figure in the legal challenge to Obamacare, tells Newsmax he is disappointed and shocked that Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate provision in the healthcare reform bill. But he...

Rep. Cassidy: 'American People Deliberately Deceived' By Obama

6/28/2012 12:13:05 PM

Rep. Bill Cassidy, a member of the GOP Doctors Caucus, called Thursday s Supreme Court decision, a bad day for fiscal responsibility.

More Special Coverage Stories — Click Here

Related:

Related Stories

• Dick Morris: Court Decision Could Come Back to Haunt Obama
• McConnell: Court Blew Obama’s Cover By Declaring Healthcare Overhaul a Tax
• Huckabee: GOP Sweep Needed to Repeal Obamacare
• Boehner Renews Vow to Try to Repeal Obamacare
• Romney: I Will Repeal
• Beck: “The Glenn Beck Program” and “Real News” were free today to discuss the ramifications of Robert’s Court ObamaCare Decision. – “Make this election in 2012 a mandate for American values” – register to vote now!

h/t to  Newsmax.com – to AP for photo

Stay tuned… More to come on this shocking ruling…

Supreme Court Issues Huge Win for President Obama, and a huge loss for the American People!!

Or… Was Judge Roberts Just Playing Bridge?

SCOTUS ObamaCare Ruling creates largest tax increase on middle class ever and hands the GOP a second front issue for Election 2012: the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare and the loss of jobs (which this ruling will make worse) in a faux artificially propped up economy will energize Conservatives, Independents and Constitutionalists en masse~

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,repeal and replace ObamaCare,Supreme Court,surpreme Court rulings,taxes

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare

By Peter Ferrara  -  Forbes

Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added).

President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare health care takeover was not passed by a strong majority. But he figures you’re so dumb he can rewrite recent history in plain sight. The law passed a House with a huge Democrat majority at the time by only 219-212. It did not get a single Republican vote, but the opposition was bipartisan.

The law also barely squeaked past a Senate filibuster despite an overwhelming 60 Senate Democrats, and even then humiliating buyoffs were necessary. Public opposition was so strong that the ultraliberal Democrat controlled Massachusetts, the only state to go for George McGovern in 1972, elected a Republican in a special election for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat, to terminate the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. That required final passage of the law improperly in violation of Congressional rules as a reconciliation measure, which is only to be used to clean up the budget and so cannot be filibustered.

And given that Obama is so certain you can’t remember what happened just two years ago, he is more than certain that you have never heard of the ancient history of Marbury v. Madison, where the 14-year old Supreme Court in 1803 took the then unprecedented step of overturning a provision of law adopted by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That case was where the Supreme Court first recognized its power of judicial review, under which it is empowered to strike down laws found unconstitutional. As the Wall Street Journal observed on Tuesday:

“In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of these laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities….probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act.”

As a former constitutional law professor and President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama no doubt knows all about Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. But he figures he can safely assume a majority of you know nothing about it, and his party controlled media will not tell you anything concerning it at this inopportune moment. Hence, another classic example of what I have called Calculated Deception.

President Obama further assailed any Supreme Court decision ruling his Obamacare health care takeover unconstitutional as “judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Alexander Hamilton disagreed over 200 years ago in Federalist 78, writing, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . .”

Or, as the Wall Street Journal explained on Monday:

“Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.”

The Journal added, “Far from seeking an activist ruling, the Obamacare plaintiffs aren’t asking the Court to overturn even a single commerce clause precedent.”

In my role as General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, I filed 3 amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in the Obamacare litigation. I also filed amicus briefs in the lower federal courts in the cases in Virginia and Florida.

The reason that at least 5 Justices are going to find the law’s individual mandate unconstitutional is that it is contrary to the fundamental federalism architecture of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal government is an authority of limited, enumerated, delegated powers. All other powers of government are reserved for the states, including the broad authority labeled the “police power.” That is the power to compel individuals to take specific actions for the public good, such as actions for the public health like vaccinations or quarantines, or obtaining car insurance, or attending school. Notice that all such laws are adopted at the state or local level. (Any federal laws compelling action are based on specific delegated powers other than the Commerce Clause, like those providing for national defense, or taxation).

The power to compel the purchase of health insurance for the public good, as in Obamacare’s individual mandate, is a function of the police power reserved to the states, and denied to the federal government by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents. If the federal government is now to hold a national police power, then the constitutional framework of federalism, with limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and the remaining powers of government retained by the states, would be obliterated.

That is why the Supreme Court held in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), “We always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power.” The Court added, “the principle that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers, while reserving a generalized police power to the States, is deeply ingrained in our constitutional history.” The Court explained in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) that Congress may not exercise its enumerated powers in a way that “infring[es] upon th[at] core of state sovereignty.” The Court in Morrison rejected the argument that women who are sexually assaulted would need medical care provides a sufficient interstate commerce connection under the Commerce Clause.

As Justice Kennedy explained in United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010), “the precepts of federalism embodied in the Constitution inform which powers are properly exercised by the National Government in the first place.” The Court added in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991), “[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers [and] withhold[s] from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation.”

The Obama Administration tried to shoe horn the individual mandate into the federal enumerated power of the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Their argument boiled down to the claim that millions of people choosing to not buy health insurance substantially affects interstate commerce. But every economic decision, when aggregated across the whole market, substantially affects interstate commerce in this way, including decisions not to do something. So that would leave the Commerce Clause eating up the whole Constitution and its most fundamental doctrine that the federal government is an authority of limited, enumerated, delegated powers. Federal power would then be without limit, contrary to the whole concept of the federal government in the Constitution.

That is why the Court kept asking the government for a principle that would limit its interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and its failure to come up with one is fatal to the government’s case. All prior cases under the Commerce Clause were based on the principle that some action had been taken that the federal government could then regulate as interstate commerce. To hold that inaction could be regulated as well as itself substantially affecting interstate commerce would break through any limitation on the power, and so was not what was intended. That would also again tear down the Constitution’s fundamental federalism architecture and any distinction between limited federal and plenary state power.

That is why the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) rejected the notion of unlimited Commerce Clause power, holding that it will strike down regulation under the Commerce Clause which leaves no principled limit to federal power under the Clause. The Court said, “the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated and that there will never be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.” Justice Kennedy added, “[T]he federal balance is too essential a part of our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or another level of Government has tipped the scales too far.”

Once the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional on these grounds, as it will, the question becomes whether the whole Obamacare Act must be struck down as unconstitutional as a result. The law does not include a traditional severability clause providing that if one of provision of the Act is found unconstitutional, the rest of the law should stand.

Consequently, the question becomes whether the remaining parts of the Obamacare law can still remain fully operative and function as Congress intended, and whether Congress would have passed the Act without the individual mandate. The answer in both cases is indisputably no.

Obama’s lawyers themselves have repeatedly argued in courts all over the country that the Obamacare law cannot function without the individual mandate. That is because of the Act’s regulatory requirements for guaranteed issue and community rating. The Act requires all insurers to cover all pre-existing conditions and issue health insurance to everyone that applies, no matter how sick they are when they first apply or how costly they may be to cover. Moreover, the insurers can only charge them the same, standard, market rates as everyone else.

Under these regulatory requirements, younger and healthier people delay buying insurance, knowing they are guaranteed coverage at standard rates after they become sick. Sick people show up applying for an insurer’s health coverage for the first time with very costly illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, which the insurer must then cover and pay for, out of the same standard premiums as everyone else pays. This means the insurer’s covered risk pool includes more costly sick people and fewer less costly healthy people, so the costs per person covered soar. The insurer then has to raise rates sharply for everyone just to be sure to have enough money to pay all of the policy’s benefits.

Those higher rates encourage even more healthy people to drop their insurance, leaving the remaining pool even sicker and more costly on average, which requires even higher premiums, resulting in a financial death spiral for the insurers and the insurance market.

If regulation required fire insurers to issue policies to people whose houses were already on fire at standard rates, the fire insurance pool would include only all burned down houses, which would obviously be dysfunctional.

The Obamacare law tries to counter this problem by adopting the individual and employer mandates, seeking to require everyone to be covered and contributing to the pool at all times. Without these mandates, the government itself has repeatedly argued, those who would remain uninsured would substantially affect the interstate market for health insurance, by allowing the remaining regulatory requirements to cause soaring health insurance premiums through the above process and ultimately a financial death spiral.

That financial death spiral would cause the costs of other provisions of Obamacare to soar, such as the subsidies for purchase of health insurance on the Exchanges, which would be even more costly than expected, and the costs for the Medicaid expansion, where more people would qualify given the decline of private insurance.

Indeed, Obamacare itself in its very statutory language recognized the essential role of the individual mandate in the statute’s overall framework, saying in Section 1501(a)(2)(I):

“[I]f there were no [individual mandate], many individuals would wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care….The [individual mandate] is essential to creating effective health insurance markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed issue and do not exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions can be sold.”

As the court said in Alaska Airlines v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678 (1987), “Congress could not have intended a constitutionally flawed provision to be severed from the remainder of the statute if the balance of the legislation is incapable of functioning independently….” Moreover, the Court also recognized that in the absence of a statutory severance clause the entire statute must be struck down if Congress would not have enacted the statute without the unconstitutional provision.

Consequently, the loss of the individual mandate so centrally affects the entire structure of the Act that without it the entire structure must fall. Trying to determine what could be salvaged would embroil the Court in rewriting the statutory policy and framework to govern one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy, which is obviously not a judicial function.

The only other foreseeable outcome is for the liberals on the Court to agree to go along with a ruling declaring the mandate unconstitutional if the Court will just decide to hold back on deciding severability to give Congress the chance to figure out how it wants to fix it. But Congress could just pass a whole new law in any event if the Court just strikes down the whole thing, which based on its precedents is exactly what it should do.

But liberals should not despair. There is broad bipartisan agreement on alternative means of covering the uninsured with a health care safety net, which would not be expensive if done right, and addressing health costs through market competition and incentives, which altogether could well actually reduce federal spending sharply. The end result would be a much better bill that satisfies all desirable social goals. But that would still require a different President, because Obama’s anti-market, left wing, ideology would not allow him to accept that desirable result.

Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth! and at Ask Marion

Day Two of Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearing: ObamaCare Could Be on Life Support

Photo:  The Blaze

People Are Saying That Obama's Healthcare Law Got Massacred At The Supreme Court Yesterday

Business Insider ^ | March 27, 2012 | Grace Wyler

The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating. Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty. According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."

The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating.

Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty.

According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."

"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin just said on CNN.

Toobin added that that the Obama administration's lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, was unprepared for the attacks against the individual mandate.

"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."

In the aftermath of today's arguments, Toobin and many other legal reporters agree that the Obamacare decision will come down to a fight between the nine Supreme Court justices.

According to reports from the courtroom, the four liberal justices seem inclined to uphold the law. But it is still unclear if the Obama administration's legal team will be able to get a fifth vote.

The WSJ reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the swing vote in the case, reportedly pushed Verrilli hard on his defense of the individual mandate, telling him that the government has a "very heavy burden of justification" to show where the Constitution gives Congress the power to force people to buy healthcare.

Tom Goldstein of SCOTUS blog sums up the end of the arguments:

Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment. But he didn’t overtly embrace that. It will be close. Very close.

Listen below to Solicitor General Verrilli nervously starting his opening argument on individual mandate (around 25 sec mark):  HERE

Video:  "This Is A Train Wreck For The Obama Administration!" Jeff Toobin On Healthcare Supreme Court

Revealed: Inside Obama’s Individual Mandate Memo and Why Obama Changed His Mind