XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 6/24/2012 5:35 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
   > By PETER BAKER   
   > WASHINGTON — With the Supreme Court likely to render judgment on   
   > President Obama’s health care law this week, the White House and   
   > Congress find themselves in a position that many advocates of the   
   > legislation once considered almost unimaginable.   
   >   
   > In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt   
   > that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to   
   > tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will   
   > eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”   
   >   
   > Congress held no hearing on the plan’s constitutionality until nearly a   
   > year after it was signed into law. Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the   
   > House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the   
   > Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health   
   > insurance. “Are you serious?” she asked with disdain. “Are you serious?”   
   >   
   > Opponents of the health plan were indeed serious, and so was the Supreme   
   > Court, which devoted more time to hearing the case than to any other in   
   > decades. A White House that had assumed any challenge would fail now   
   > fears that a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s presidency may be partly or   
   > completely overturned on a theory that it gave little credence. The   
   > miscalculation left the administration on the defensive as its legal   
   > strategy evolved over the last two years.   
   >   
   > “It led to some people taking it too lightly,” said a Congressional   
   > lawyer who like others involved in drafting the law declined to be   
   > identified before the ruling. “It shouldn’t strike anybody as a close   
   > call,” the lawyer added, but “given where we are now, do I wish we had   
   > focused even more on this? I guess I would say yes.”   
   >   
   > Looking back, Democrats said they had had every reason for confidence,   
   > given decades of Supreme Court precedents affirming Congress’s authority   
   > to regulate interstate commerce...   
      
   And that is the core of this and many other overreaching legislative   
   issues: misinterpretation of the fundamental clause.   
      
   "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the   
   several States..."   
      
   There is NO delegation of authority to "regulate interstate commerce"!!!   
     The fundamental argument in favor Obamacare is quite simply and   
   entirely based on a deliberate and unjust misinterpretation of the   
   original grant of authority.   
      
   Regulate: to MAKE REGULAR, to ENSURE the FREE-FLOW of.   
   Commerce: GOODS in TRADE.   
   States: State GOVERNMENTS.   
      
   In short, the original grant was to ensure that state governments did   
   NOT interfere with trade.  That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It   
   is NOT a grant to unilaterally CONTROL anything that once traveled in   
   trade, may travel in trade, may impact trade or anything that could   
   theoretically be considered trade (e.g. non-goods, services, etc.).   
      
   As soon as a just government starts to compel it immediately becomes   
   unjust. I have the FREEDOM to choose.  Obamacare destroys freedom, it   
   eliminates choice and forces behavior.  NONE OF THOSE ARE TENETS OF A   
   JUST GOVERNMENT.   
      
   OBAMACARE RUNS COUNTER TO THE DESIGNS OF A JUST GOVERNMENT.  I don't   
   know how the supreme Court will find, but regardless of their finding   
   (even if they opine that it /is/ constitutional -- a bald-faced lie), it   
   still runs counter to the original purpose and intent for establishing   
   this nation and spits in the face of the original constitutional intent.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)