Comments (21) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Limited powers?
Tools
In Florida, this week or next, federal Judge Roger Vinson has said he may throw out several counts in the lawsuit filed by 20 states seeking to overturn the vast expansion of federal power under ObamaCare, but that he expects to allow "at least one count" to go forward.
Grounds for the challenge include the contention that Congress has no authority to require individual Americans to buy health insurance.
Meantime, a Michigan court on Thursday tossed out a request by the Thomas More Law Center to issue an injunction blocking the federals from taking any further steps to implement the law.
Given that the Supreme Court since the New Deal has proven reluctant to do its primary job -- blocking the usurpation by the other branches of powers not specifically granted in the Constitution -- do the ObamaCare challenges really have any chance?
The closely split court has had its statist wing reinforced by two recent Obama appointees. A dramatic, decisive and sweeping rebuff of federal expansion would seem unlikely.
On the other hand, some 60 percent of the electorate opposes the power grab, which may lend the constitutional wing of the court some added backbone.
And the grounds for legal action also continue to proliferate, including even a First Amendment challenge contending religious exemptions under the law are too narrow.
Oddly, the strongest arguments against the law come from those who step forward to support it.
USA Today reported Wednesday that Justice Department lawyers "argue that dismantling the statute ... would be a first step in rolling back laws dating to the New Deal that have given the government broad authority to regulate the behavior of individuals and states."
Read it again. Laws cannot give the central government new powers. Only constitutional amendments can do that. Any law that has "given the federal government broad new authority" is unconstitutional, and must be thrown out.
Finally, USA Today reports, "Supporters of the law say healthy people must be required to buy coverage to offset higher costs that insurance companies face under the new law -- otherwise, insurance will be too expensive for everyone."
Actually, private health insurance used to be quite affordable, before legislators started larding on politically popular new "coverage mandates."
But more to the point, when asked for a constitutional justification for their mandates, the Obamaites merely argue it's mathematically necessary to make their scheme work ... at least for awhile, till all the private insurers go broke and they're "oh-so-reluctantly forced" to impose socialized medicine out of whole cloth.
That's like saying you have to rob banks to make the payments on your new mansion and sports car. If bureaucrats can usurp any power they find necessary to make their newest hare-brained scheme work, we no longer have a constitutional government of limited powers, at all.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Other polls place the anti-Obamacare faction at well over 75%, but we mustn't allow our Constitution to be eroded by polls anyway. Whether Cortez-Masto prefers to keep party politics alive and well, or merely to assist the Democratic Party's illegal immigrant faction into obtaining free health care could be debatable. The central government has NO authority to mandate the citizenry to purchase health care, period.
Shall I take that comment as a "all the above" answer, Scott?
You call these wackos conservatives?
I have been a Republican all my life.
I have served my country in the Army, ready to die for the preservation of the Constitution.
I have worked steady for over 40 years.
I know Conservatives.
I have worked many Conservative Campaigns in my life.
Conservatives are pragmatic.
You Sir/Madam are no Conservative.
You are just a mix of Ignorant, Intolerant, Irrational, Christian Taliban, Hateful Hypocrites.
So have a ball laughing as you wackos demean the thousands of Border Patrol workers, Teachers, Police, Fire Department workers, Attorneys, the working poor, indingents,
the sick, the many Goverment and Community workers and all who devote thier lives helping thier neighbors.
Tell me "ScottyV" are You your brothers keeper?
You Wacko Woman supporters have no idea what a Real Christian Conservative is!
@liberalslie-
'Cause it makes them compete.
Blackvegas; man you crack me up, you sure do make it easy to vote conservative, knowing people like will be blowing a gasket makes me laugh!
Good job, you wacko Neocons. Your support of extreme idiots has cost us the Senate and may cost us the "House". You would have to be ignorant, racist, blind partisans or all three to vote for these nut jobs. Which one(s) are you?
Neocons block all jobs bills, then complain about "no jobs".
Neocons demand "individual responsibility" in Health care bill, then sue when Obama agrees.
Most major Nevada Republicans back Harry Reid.
Thought you ought to know some of this because "Faux Nuse" and the R. J. don't want you to know any of this.
If I got all of my (mis)information from these lying propaganda machines, I would be incensed as all of you Wacko Woman supporters are. Fortunately for me I read bipartisan economic reports and watch Discovery, History and real News reports. So while all of you Wacko Woman supporters are told to only watch "Faux" and only read the R. J. editorial pages, WND.com and Heritage Foundation reports, those of us who are allowed to peruse all information outlets know the truth.
Hey, if I tear up your house, make sure you sue the clean up crew for the damage I have done. Is there any wonder sane Republicans call you Witch loving, Christian Taliban Supremacists supporters, ignorant Wackos?
Virgil A. Sestini: Check these out to see what's happening in our schools. http://secular-humanism.com/ And http://www.cultural-relativism.com/
OH...Mac let's get together and make a Youtube video. Yeah...and how about one of these (eye jab), and what about one of those (stomp on foot) Yuh..yuh....why I outta audit your tax returns. Whoop!
The Three Stooges:
1. Obama
2. Reid
3. Pelosi
I'd love to see a modern day spoof of these three whacking each other with hammers and giving the old eye gouge routine.
But they are in fact stooges for big uncontrolled government spending and programs.
Get rid of them all, starting with Harry. Now is OUR chance for Hope and Change!
Astonishing that a Federal Judge would allow any of the Obamalackofcare provisions to go forward that is unless they are a libtard traitor....