Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Judge Napolitano: Supreme Court may save us from Obamacare...someday

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/untitledpost-2

Newsmax released Judge Andrew P. Napolitano's interview with Ashley Martella

"The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments. Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.

"That's called commandeering the legislature. That's the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That's prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.”

Napolitano on the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the healthcare industry makes the new federal regulations that much more problematic:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can't simply move in there and the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they're doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

"The Congress can't simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law…"

The judge also says he would rate President Obama as one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations.

"I believe we have a one party system in this country, called the big-government party. There is a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare and taxes and assaulting commercial liberties.

"President Obama obviously is squarely within the Democratic branch. The president who had the least fidelity to the Constitution was Abraham Lincoln, who waged war on half the country, even though there's obviously no authority for that, a war that killed nearly 700,000 people. President Obama is close to that end of lacking fidelity to the Constitution. He wants to outdo his hero FDR."

For those who oppose healthcare, the Fox legal expert says, the bad news is that many of the legal challenges to healthcare reform will have to wait until 2014, when the changes become fully operational.

Until then, there would be no legal case that individuals had been actually harmed by the law. Moreover, Napolitano says it takes an average of four years for a case to work its way through the various federal courts the final hearing that's expected to come before the Supreme Court.

"You're talking about 2018, which is eight years from now, before it is likely the Supreme Court will hear this," he says.

Other issues that Napolitano addressed during the wide-ranging interview:
  • He believes American is in danger of becoming "a fascist country," which he defines as "private ownership, but government control." He adds, "The government doesn't have the money to own anything. But it has the force and the threat of violence to control just about anything it wants. That will rapidly expand under President Obama, unless and until the midterm elections give us a midterm correction – which everyone seems to think, and I'm in that group, is about to come our way.
  • Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want -- that's never happened in our history before," Napolitano says. "My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn't have that kind of power under the Constitution."
  • The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it – the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others – create "a very unique and tricky constitutional problem" for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution's equal protection clause according to Napolitano. "So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don't have to pay what the rest of us do," Napolitano says.
  • Exempting union members from the so-called "Cadillac tax" on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. "The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can't say, 'Here's a tax, but we're only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here's a tax, and we're only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.' The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination."
  • Politicians from both parties routinely disregard the Constitutional limits imposed on them by the nation's founding document, Napolitano says. "The problem with the Constitution is not any structural problem," says Napolitano. "The problem with the constitution is that those who take an oath to uphold it don't take their oath seriously. For example, just a month ago in interviewing Congressman Jim Clyburn, who's the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House, I said to him, Congressman Clyburn, can you tell me where in the Constitution the Congress is authorized to regulate healthcare? He said, 'Judge, most of what we do down here,' referring to Washington, 'is not authorized by the Constitution. Can you tell me where in the Constitution we're prohibited from regulating healthcare.' Napolitano says that reflects a misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually is. "He's turning the Constitution on its head, because Congress is not a general legislature," he says. "It was not created in order to right every wrong. It exists only to legislate in the 17 specific, discrete, unique areas where the Constitution has given it power. All other areas of human area are reserved for the states."
  • Napolitano says that members of Congress infringe on Constitutional rights because they fail to recognize its basis. "They reject Jefferson's argument, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator, therefore they're natural rights, therefore they can't be legislated away," Napolitano says. "They think they can legislate on any activity, regulate any behavior, tax any person or thing, as long as the politics will let them survive. They're wrong, and with this healthcare legislation, they may be proven wrong, in a very direct and in-your-face way."
http://newsmax.com/Headline/Andrew-Napolitano-barack-obama/2010/03/26/id/354008?s=al&promo_code=9A73-1

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

President vs. Supreme Court & Constitution?

Originally posted on The Desk of Brian, www.DeskofBrian.com at

http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/presidentvssupremecourtconstitution

 




"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."1

Justice Alito mouthing "Not True" met criticisms from Democrats.


"I can't ever recall a president taking a swipe at the Supreme Court like that," said Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court expert at the University of Texas law school.2

What should concern us is the flippant comment about circumventing the Constitution:

"This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans."1

 It's not a question of if, it's already put together as Bloomberg reports. If an executive order gets the President what he wants, then an executive order it shall be.

 The language of the two branches are poignantly opposed to one another.

 President Obama: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

"The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union." - Chief Justice John Roberts

This dispute carries across party lines, blurring the intent of Free Speech under the guise of corruption and evil big business. Likewise, the dissenters pretend that the current landscape shields corporations from funding political parties, candidates or ads, but in fact, these entities muddle the process by creating faux foundations to funnel funds to endorse their political preference.

 The Supreme Court's decision upheld some of our most basic principles, principles about the freedom to engage in political speech that are incorporated into the Constitution, a document that the critics of this decision seem all to willing to ignore when its requirements don’t fit their political objectives.

 Of course, as with Nancy Pelosi, the President seems to think we are "kidding" when we demand our politicians abide by the limits of the Constitution. (see below for Pelosi exchange)


Frankly Mr. President, I'm NOT kidding.


1. Read the entire SOU transcript: Barack Obama - 2010 State of Union address











Pelosi exhange on health care
CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"


Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"


CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."


Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter.

http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/Congress/910231230

Saturday, January 30, 2010

End Doesn't Justify the Means: Obama, the Train & Gay Marriage

Original posting at www.DeskofBrian.com

http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/enddoesntjustifythemeansobamathetraingaymarriage

The current political landscape is the arguably the most intrusive in our history. The President marches into Tampa to announce that a high-speed railway will be built and his $8 billion dollars will help make it happen. Meanwhile, on the other coast, a Federal judge will decide whether to overturn the State court ruling and the will of the people on Proposition 8, a ban on the recognition of gay marriage.


Over the last five years or so, the Florida railway amendments and funding proposals have all failed. The lack of interest coupled with the lack of funding have not been salvaged by the President's reallocation of Federal tax revenue.

There is only $2-3 billion available for the project from Florida taxpayers, so the plan is merely halfway funded. Additionally, critics have been vocal that the plan proposes NO station for Lakeland or downtown Orlando leaving many individuals and business disadvantaged.

By the way, that $25 billion dollar price tag is the same figure used in 2004 -- anyone think that's accurate?

It doesn't matter what voters support, the impact on the Florida Department of Transportation, or the unanswered questions of the remaining billions - Obama rides into town with promises, articulates campaign rhetoric and gives a mandate from up high.

Meanwhile, a couple of thousand miles away in California, a US Supreme court stands to undo the California Supreme Court ruling that maintained the validity of Prop 8 and the people's right to determine the legal recognition of a marriage contract.

See the issue is the State's right to recognize a legal binding contract, however it's defined, but this would require an amendment to the state constitution. There is no prevention of entering into a contract, a homosexual marriage, but the state recognition of that contract is what's disputed.

So now the debate turns to blame as supporters are now blaming the failure in California on the religious right and the bigoted voters.

Yes, in California.

The same California that the LA Times, Pew Research Center and others have all proclaimed to be less religious, lax on religion, etc...(compared to the other states) has orchestrated a smear campaign rooted in hatred, bigotry and discrimination. That includes the 53% of Latino voters and 70% of blacks which were more "intolerant" that the 50% of white voters.

As absurd is it sounds, the Supreme Court ruling would undo the State Court, the entire State Constitutional process, the voting process and the voice of the people.

Government intrusion is "okay" if it's something you support.

The railway supporters are thrilled with the President's assistance, but would they have felt this way had President Bush arrived in Florida to fund offshore oil drilling?

Would the citizens of California support a reversal of 2003's failed Prop 54, Racial Privacy Initiative. Under the same guise of prejudices, the Californians have to acknowledge Prop 54 because of judicial ruling undoing over 5.5 million voters.

Californians spent $83 million on the debate which lasted over six months, but Prop 8 failed. The appropriate response would be to adjust the debate, the presentation, address the concerns etc...and reintroduce the amendment.

Just as the President perceives "he knows what is best for us", so goes the Californians supporting a measure for a judge to overturn our constitutional process.





No Lakeland or Orlando Stations for Fl. Railway: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/07/22/the-fatal-flaw-of-florida-high-speed-rail/

2004 Failed amendment for Fl. railway: http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf041108.htm

LA Times: California Less Religious than rest of country: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/24/local/me-faith24