Obamacare Ruled Constitutional

June 28, 2012

- See all 34 of my articles

Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...

Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the majority opinion.

Don’t spike the ball. This is what the Crying Man and his cohorts in Congress focused on leading up to today’s decision by the Supreme court on the Affordable Care Act or more commonly known as Obamacare. They did not want to upset the common folk and possible voters in the upcoming elections by having too joyous of a reaction to what they felt was going to be a Supreme Court ruling in the favor of their ideals. Man, they must have really been blindsided when the ruling came down today in favor of upholding Obamacare, especially when the deciding vote ended up being one of their own. So it has already been a pretty chipper beginning to a day for me, but should I have this good of a feeling. Oh what the hell, screw this I am spiking the ball. IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL.

Actually that was a tweet this morning from the DNC executive director when the ruling came out, but its sums up my sentiments exactly. A man the Republicans thought they had in the palm of their hand ended up being the deciding vote against them and Kennedy sided with them. Oh the irony. Granted in his opinion on the ruling Chief Justice John Roberts was pretty political with his rhetoric about the President, but did uphold the right of Congress to mandate people having healthcare coverage as it is in ways a tax. I bet Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are now no longer on speaking terms with the Chief Justice after his ruling. I mean the same Court that brought you the personhood of Corporate America and unlimited secret campaign spending to buy elections, just saved Obamacare. Oh the agony!

The ruling was pretty much a sweep across the board in favor of upholding all of what was before the court. The ability for 26 year olds to be on their parents’ insurance was upheld. The ability for Congress to regulate that people with pre-existing conditions to be able to be covered by insurance was upheld. Most importantly and the most debated part of the decision is that the individual mandate was upheld as a taxing mechanism. Now I do not really like the wording with the ruling there as it just added more fuel to the fire for the illogical right. The only down part in the ruling was that the Medicaid expansion was struck down, but would be upheld if Congress were to take out the clause punishing states by withholding current Medicaid funds if they did not comply with the expansion. I agree that that part should be taken out and if it were not for the Congress that don’t do anything (sorry my kids have been watching Veggietales a bit much lately) it would be able to be remedied quickly.

Well that is about it for this month. Ah what a feeling. I will open up the comments section to discussion on the SCOTUS ruling. I will try to answer comments as soon as I see them. I’d love to see some discussion on this. Certainly a phrase I would never have thought I’d say. Thank you Chief Justice Roberts for making my day and slightly restoring my view of the Supreme Court if only just for one ruling.

Enhanced by Zemanta

8 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. kosmo
    Jun 29, 2012 @ 09:37:18

    Interesting quote from Rand Paul (as you pointed out on Facebopok, I believe):

    “Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional.”

    I’m pretty sure that it’s the supreme court’s job to interpret the law …

    OK, so Obamacare was approved by a majority of both houses of congress (legislative branch), signed into law by the president (executive branch), and upheld by the supreme court (judicial branch) – with the majority opinion written by a Republican-appointed chief justice. Are we waiting for a 4th brand of government to render a decision?

    It’s unfortunate for Paul that his party was in the minority and unable to stop the passage of the law, but this is exactly the way the system is designed to work. If the Republicans want tor repeal Obamacare, they’re going to have to convince voters to elect enough of them to give them the power to do it.


  2. steve@Natural Law
    Jun 30, 2012 @ 16:11:47

    It isn’t constitutional and above all it is something we need to re-institute a government for.
    It is in violation of something that even precedes the Constitution(which is what set up the Fed Gov), the Declaration of Independence which set us free. We instituted a government to protect our right to our life and liberty. We instituted a government to protect us from anything that would take money from us or make us buy something against our will.


  3. The Angry Squirrel
    Jun 30, 2012 @ 17:01:34

    It is quite something view the if it is not our thought it is wrong and unconstitutional

    Case in point this Steve guy here who now believes the government must be overthrown and reborn since he did not get what he . Please tell me in the Constition where it says that hard right conservatism must be the law of the land.


    • steve@Natural Law
      Jun 30, 2012 @ 19:44:56

      It goes like this. The politicians and governments authority comes from the constitution. The constitution is a document to limit the powers of the government. The constitution exist to form the government that the declaration proclaims. That is a government to insure our rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution can’t violate or go against the document sent to the king and posted and read to the colonies for all to see and know why they were fighting. The constitution can’t violate that. The government is to protect those things, not take them away. The meaning of those words have been the same since 1776. They didn’t change because of Obamacare and many of us knew these words before Obamacare came about.


  4. kosmo
    Jun 30, 2012 @ 22:31:52

    There are a lot of thing that could be argued as obstructing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – income taxes, speed limits, and even anti-incest laws.

    The Declaration of Independence is indeed a great document, but it’s the job of SCOTUS to follow the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence – and the Constitution is a freestanding document that is not subservient to any other document. If something is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, it not “unconstitutional”. It must be contrary to the actual constitution to be unconstitutional.

    Let’s not go down the path of whether Obamacare is contrary to the Declaration, since that is really irrelevant. Any debate on the constitutionality should be based on what the actual Constitution says.

    If you feel that Obamacare is contrary to the actual Constitution, give specifics so that we can frame the discussion properly.


  5. Evan
    Jul 01, 2012 @ 05:58:29

    Yea, Steve, I think your point is way oversimplified. With that theory, the government shouldn’t be able to regulate anything.


  6. steve@Natural Law
    Jul 01, 2012 @ 08:17:48

    Yes, I do think the Federal government shouldn’t be able to regulate anything. I do think the income tax is illegal. Speed limits are different, the government was instituted to protect our rights to our life and that includes property. We are in charge of our property. Speed limits on roads would be determined by whomever owns the road. But many of the roads were installed via criminal means, the money was stolen from people. So that is another big topic for another thread.
    But either way, Obamacare like the Federal Reserve bank and the IRS are wrong and oddly enough we instituted a government to protect us from such things. But mostly starting around 1913 things went wrong.
    Did you all ever wonder why our government was one way for the first 130 years? We attempted two or three central banks before 1913, but they were thrown out. We taxed imports and exports, but not much else before then. They had to make an amendment for the IRS, that was wrong and many said it at that time and it wasn’t even ratified by all the states back then. But, forget all that.
    The Declaration is important and you can’t ignore it. It is what people read before they risked their lives by going to war. It is a more important contract.
    The constitution limits congress. The constitution list what they can do. It actually says they can’t do anything not listed. It’s says they can’t levi new taxes. More correctly you should ask where in the constitution does it say they can do it? No where, that’s why they had to put it through there legal maze and say it’s a tax, it’s not a tax,, no one is even sure now if it’s a tax, a fine, or a penalty if you don’t buy insurance. The constitution does not give the power to congress to make us buy something. When something has to be so convulsive like the IRS tax code or Obamacare that should make you wonder. Our legal system was hijacked by the law society and they violate they the very founding of this country everyday.


  7. Martin Kelly
    Jul 02, 2012 @ 15:18:07

    I am still surprised by the viciousness that has accompanied this entire debate. The law is constitutional. I don’t like it but it is the law. I don’t like the draft either, but I signed up when required to. The Supreme Court has stated that the law is constitutional. They have also stated that the mandate is a tax. The relief I have for that decision is that they did not find anything under the commerce clause that forces people to buy anything. Think if they decided that they need to prop up the housing industry and that everyone had to buy a house? Or say a car? Or broccoli?

    If the administration really wants to beat the drums stating that this is not a tax, then the court will have to re-evaluate the decision. I hope that both sides of this argument settle down. I do not want this to go back to the courts. If the republicans get enough seats to undo all or part of the law, that is their right as with any law. If Mitt Romney wins the presidency and decides to not enforce the law, that is apparently within his rights as well as can be seen by any of the modern presidents. I don’t like that either, if it is the law as passed by congress, then the executive branch should enforce it. Of course there are so many laws on the books now, many of them contradictory, there is no way to enforce all of them.


Leave a Reply