Too many members of Congress think passing a constitutionally dubious bill is politically safe because responsibility will fall on the courts to give a final yea or nay. The Democrats' government health care takeover is different. Every potential constitutional violation involved with Obamacare presents a grave political threat to every wavering congressman who votes for it. The only way to avoid being haunted for years is to kill Obamacare now.

Democratic leaders pushing the "Slaughter Rule" to "deem" the bill passed without an actual vote are relying on a 2007 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision called Public Citizen v. Clerk. In that case, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat, argued that procedural errors within the House should lead the courts to invalidate a law. The appeals court disagreed, writing that courts should not be "directing legislative authentication procedures."

Now it is Speaker Pelosi and Mrs. Slaughter who are claiming their own procedural maneuvers can't be challenged. They fail to note the distinction that the Public Citizen case involved mere technical discrepancies in an enrolled bill, whereas the Slaughter Rule would change the very nature of the constitutionally mandated requirements for how a bill becomes law. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, "Congress cannot alter the procedures set out in Article I, Section 7, without amending the Constitution." Specifically, the court wrote that no bill could become law unless "(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text."

If the courts pronounce the Slaughter Rule unconstitutional, members who voted for it not only will have borne the wrath of angry opponents but will get no credit from the few Americans who did support the bill but then would see no benefits.

On substance alone, Obamacare will be subject to constitutional challenges on at least three fronts, including the unprecedented "mandate" that every individual buy health insurance or face fines or jail time. The way Obamacare is designed, with enough interlocking parts to make even Einstein dizzy, the whole edifice crumbles if the mandate is declared unconstitutional. Politicians who survive this fall's elections would be forced to return to the subject and take even more tough votes cleaning up the mess.

There's no political upside to caving in to Mrs. Pelosi's pressure to pass flawed legislation. Better to listen to the American public- and the text and spirit of the Constitution - and step up to defeat the whole thing.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/political-dangers-for-obamacare-supporters/

sence that is a rule they have been useing in congress for a while now . if the court rules it illegal then many things well change besides the health bill . but the republicans don't make good laws any way , who cares .

Idaho first to sign law that would sue federal government over health care reform

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_STATES?SITE=INKEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

IF 'DeathCare' passes, it will be tied up in court for a long time.

BUT: It will have PASSED. Can anyone name ONE single entitlement program (and that's what this is) enacted into law that has EVER been repealed? Medicare? Medicaid? Social Security? SCHIP? Part D drug program? School lunch program? Bueller ... ? Bueller ... ?

Better that this be DEFEATED this weekend rather than passed.

I heard tonight that something like 37 states have proposed resolutions to either remove themselves or specific parts of the bill if it's passed into law.

Things are going to get VERY interesting in the next few weeks.

That is in the article I posted. Idaho looks like it's the first state

Wow, they don't care about all of the millions of people without health insurance. That's sad to me.

or it could be that they don't like the HC bill as it is or that they don't like mandated insurance on people.

We have Medicaid/CHIP for low income families and private HC for those that can afford it. Why not make a middle ground for those that making too much money for government help and not enough money for private HC?

It seems silly to rewrite a whole book because some parts of it need to be redone.. seems equally silly to do it with a bill that has had this much time and effort invested into it... pass the bill,, keep what is working,, amend what doesnt work,,,,,I thought thats how its ALWAYS been done and the whole reason that we have amendments,,,,what bill ever passed that was COMPLETELY agreeable to everyone?

The Dems don't care about the people. All they want is to be part of "historic" legislation.

You have got to be kidding me if you think this is a legitamate bill.

Why pass something that they allready know needs to be ammended?

With all the back room deals that went on to get the bill this far, and new ones that are in the works now to make a final push for this.

With such "HISTORIC" legislation wouldn't you want it to be the best it can?

It looks (to me) like Idaho is trying to stop the HC because the government is requiring people to get HC



As far as amending it after it is passed....some people like the whole bill, some like most of the bill, BUT there are some that dislike most of the bill or all of the bill.

the bill is lame. it does not go far enough.
personally i think we need radical change
and the sooner the better to make health care
affordable and available to everyone regardless
of their income level of if they have cancer,
diabetes, a virus or broken leg.

the whole system we have currently is bloated
and extremely unfair. the politicians get
excellent care while others get letters denying
them coverage when they are ill and fighting
with them and their doctors over care.

it is egregious and this is why it is getting
the ax. but they should go a step further and
really SCRAP the whole system with the goal of
making the end result the highest quality and
most cost effective system in the world bar none.

this means getting rid of the insurers all
together because they add nothing of value and
just inefficiently suck trillions out of our
collective pockets. they are a useless middleman
a tax on all of us and one which we cannot afford
and the sooner we chuck them the faster we will
save money...and tossing them out on their ears
will not affect our medical care in the slightest
so, once we slash the fat waste then we can improve
our care and we will really be getting somewhere.
but these half measures really only drag the pain
out.

in treating cancer it is best to operate quickly
and remove the whole problem. eradicate it
immediately and start the healing process. if you
nibble cautiously around the edges then there will
only be more surgery and pain down the line and
the patient will remain at higher risk.

and our health care system has cancer - let's
bite the bullet and excise the nastiness and get
a system which works for us once again.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

-10th Amendment to the US Constitution

nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the authority to require private citizens to do business with a private company (insurance companies)

the states could but the Federal government can't

it won't stand

FALSE STATEMENT - let me turn that around for you....they (supporters of this bill) don't care about the constitution. That's sad to me. You see how ridiculous that is.

Democrats are using a questionable legislative process to pass this bill. Mandating that everyone buy insurance as well may be unconstitutiional. If the bill was a GOOD BILL, a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT along with a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS wouldn' have ALL THIS EFFORT AND CIRCUMVERSION OF PROCESS FOR IT TO PASS.

HUM!!!

- End of slavery
- Women's voting right
- Civil rights battles

Must all have been BAD BILLS, 'cause they all went through hell before landing!!!

Anyone suggesting today we should...

... take away women's voting rights!?!?!?

... go back to slavery (maybe white slavery for balance!?!?)

... or go back to segregated everything!?!?!?

Real Change is always met with Real Resistance.

Obama promised Real Change, and promising to provide 30 million + people with health coverage is met with Real Resistance!!!

At the end of the day, after all the resistance will have voiced and accounted for (years of fun and excitement), I doubt very much that the enlightening Constitution of the USA would argue against justice and fairness for ALL of the 'WE THE PEOPLE'!!!

yes, but I wouldnt want to wait till its PERFECT to start doing SOMETHING,.as I said, thats what amendments are for

I hope you are right. As to the constitutionality of the bill, I am sure we as laypersons have NOT nearly the grasp of the constitution that consitutional LAWYERS have(such as Barack OBAma). Does anyone really believe someone who majored in these things and made a career of it wouldnt have done DUE DILIGENCE to make sure it wouldnt violate the constitution before putting in this type of work and heartache?

One has to only google some law sites to see BOTH sides of the argument and the FACT that there is actually a LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE argument for the BILL,,,along with precedents....
from lawprofessors.typepad.com(authored by LAW PROFESSORS at John Marshall and CUNY schools of law)

"First, an individual mandate is almost certainly the kind of economic activity that the Court would uphold under Congress's Commerce Clause authority under Raich, Lopez, and United States v. Morrison"

"The whole argument for an individual mandate is to get health care consumers to internalize their costs, and not spread them to the larger interstate economy. A health insurance mandate is almost certainly within Congress's Commerce Clause powers, whether Congress calls it an "excise tax" or something else."

"But any federal reform measure currently in play would fit comfortably within Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause and the Court's "substantial effects" test--i.e., that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause anything that has a "substantial effect" upon interstate commerce"

isn't it curious that those were all Republican issues that were opposed by Democrats

How about the fact that this country simply cannot AFFORD a bill that has a bunch of things in it that might not work??

With the economy the way it is, America can't afford to take a shot in the dark as far as " Well...we think it's going to work this way...but we aren't positive ".

At this point, though, the Democrats just don't care about the potential damage. They just want to get it passed.

From time.com

Between 1901 and 1916, the budget was almost always balanced. But then came the Great Depression followed closely by World War II, which resulted in a long succession of deficits that caused the federal debt to balloon from $16 billion in 1930 to $242 billion by 1946. (Adjusted for inflation, that's about $206 billion and $2.67 trillion, respectively.)

The federal government's spending oscillated over the subsequent decades, running a surplus in the good years and a deficit in the bad ones, until the early 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policies — tax cuts combined with substantial increases in Cold War–era defense spending — led to a string of deficits that averaged $206 billion a year between 1983 and 1992. The balanced-budget acts of 1990 and 1997 helped reverse this unprecedented level of peacetime spending, and in 1998 the U.S. recorded its first budget surplus in nearly 20 years



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1918390,00.html#ixzz0ik0ARtrN



Reagan to this day is credited as one of the best presidents of our history. WE will go through phases of surplus and deficit, , it is a part of life,,, but we NEED healthcare reform