Has president Obama earned your vote?

He rammed unconstitutional legislation called ObamaCare down our throats! Too bad the SCOTUS couldn't tell it was. The dissenting opinion had it correct, thus:

Justice Scalia, writing for the other dissenting Justices, took up only 66 pages to formulate a cogent and appropriate response to ObamaCare’s 2700-page takeover of a private sector function and its dictate to the States on Medicaid and to compel We the People to purchase a private good or service.

In his opening Justice Scalia states,

“The question in this case, however, is whether the complex structures and provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act or ACA) go be- yond those powers. We conclude that they do.”

He goes on to outline exactly how Congress and this president exceeded their constitutional authority… and those reasons are iron-clad and Constitutionally based.

To the Commerce Clause:

“Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to com¬pel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

That clear principle carries the day here.”


To the Individual Mandate:

“The Individual Mandate in the Act commands that every “applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a) (2006 ed., Supp. IV). If this provision “regulates” anything, it is the failure to maintain minimum essential coverage. One might argue that it regulates that failure by requiring it to be accompanied by payment of a penalty. But that failure—that abstention from commerce—is not “Commerce.” To be sure, purchasing insurance is “Commerce”; but one does not regulate commerce that does not exist by compelling its existence.”


To the expansion of Medicaid:

“Seven Members of the Court agree that the Medicaid Expansion, as enacted by Congress, is unconstitutional. Because the Medicaid Expansion is unconstitutional, the question of remedy arises.”

“The reality that States were given no real choice but to expand Medicaid was not an accident. Congress assumed States would have no choice, and the ACA depends on States’ having no choice, because its Mandate requires low-income individuals to obtain insurance many of them can afford only through the Medicaid Expansion. Fur¬thermore, a State’s withdrawal might subject everyone in the State to much higher insurance premiums.”

“Worse, the Government’s proposed remedy introduces a new dynamic: States must choose between expanding Medicaid or paying huge tax sums to the federal fisc for the sole benefit of expanding Medicaid in other States. If this divisive dynamic between and among States can be introduced at all, it should be by conscious congressional choice, not by Court-invented interpretation. We do not doubt that States are capable of making decisions when put in a tight spot. We do doubt the authority of this Court to put them there.”


To the Severability:

“The two pillars of the Act are the Individual Mandate and the expansion of coverage under Medicaid. In our view, both these central provisions of the Act—the Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion—are invalid. It follows, as some of the parties urge, that all other provi¬sions of the Act must fall as well.”

“The Court has applied a two-part guide as the frame¬work for severability analysis.”

“First, if the Court holds a statutory provision unconstitutional, it then determines whether the now truncated statute will operate in the manner Congress intended. If not, the remaining provisions must be invalidated.”

“Second, even if the remaining provisions can operate as Congress designed them to operate, the Court must de¬termine if Congress would have enacted them standing alone and without the unconstitutional portion.”

Essentially, the Opinion of the Court failed to take in one very important point when even they determined the unconstitutionality of the ObamaCare’s Medicaid provision, which is a reason to have tossed out the entire law.

“We have no reliable basis for knowing which pieces of the Act would have passed on their own. It is certain that many of them would not have, and it is not a proper function of this Court to guess which. To sever the statute in that manner “‘would be to make a new law, not to enforce an old one. This is not part of our duty.’”


If ever there was a period in our history when we needed to understand the dire consequences of hiring the wrong person (or in this case, re-hiring Obama) as the country’s chief executive, it’s this:

The next president may well have to appoint four new Justices to the Supreme Court!

Justice Ginsburg is 78.
Justice Scalia is 75.
Justice Kennedy is 75.
Justice Breyer is 74.

As Jeff Knox of World Net Daily alluded to in his article, “A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court can be a very long time. Sonia Sotomayor, now 55, and Elena Kagan, 51, represent a possible 30 to 35 years of anti-Second Amendment opinions on the court. Just one more young, liberal justice would give the long-range advantage to the reconstructionist crowd, and two such appointments could mean the death of liberty and the Constitution.”
Ref: http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/el...

Note: All references to Justice Scalia’s dissent cited above are contained here from pdf page 127 of the decision in, National Federation of Business v. Kathleen Sebelius (a.k.a. the ObamaCare decision).