THE DISSENTING VOICE ON ACA...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/98542443/11-393c3a2


The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision The Court’s disposition, invented and a textual as it is,does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union.Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion.

That already happens regardless by way of taxing and spending.  It's not as if there is a 1:1 ratio with respect to taxes collected  from a state and spending that goes back into that state.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

Generally speaking, blue states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending; and red states receive more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes.

To channel the words of the dissenting opinion, Blue states must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast amounts of money spent in red states.

You're welcome, red states.  
             - blue states

Justice Clarence Thomas: adds...


.......the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate“economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.”.....


As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.”Morrison, supra,at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also
inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point

JUSTICE KENNEDY SAYS HE WOULD HAVE STRUCK DOWN ALL OF OBAMACARE

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-ruling-2012-6#ixzz3e6u52ATF


"In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety," he said, according to SCOTUSblog.

In a 5-4 vote, the high court upheld the heart of Obamacare.

The justices found the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty can be upheld as a tax.

The power of Congress to tax the American people to provide for the General welfare of the Citizens of this country is well within their constitutional powers.  The commerce clause legal argument required coming to Pensacola to find a judge sufficiently challenged, and not a constitutional scholar to advanced the absurd argument that the commerce clause limits Congress in their power to tax and provide programs based on the same.  Thomas is limited in his breadth and understanding of the constitution and usually is shielded by the brilliance of Scalia who does understand the constitution, but the commerce clause argument could make Congress passing individual retirement accounts void and just about any other congressional program.....and that is not what the constitution clearly says.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

General welfare in the constitution didn't have anything to do with your utopian nanny state comrade.

General welfare in the constitution didn't have anything to do with your utopian nanny state comrade.

Well I will be darned.....you look good in that Black Robe, but the rest of the Justices just disagree with your opinion.....and to think they do not respect your learned position.   Nothing worse than following the constitution.

2seaoat wrote:General welfare in the constitution didn't have anything to do with your utopian nanny state comrade.

Well I will be darned.....you look good in that Black Robe, but the rest of the Justices just disagree with your opinion.....and to think they do not respect your learned position.   Nothing worse than following the constitution.

If health care is the right of every individual then the health care industry should be nationalized and available to all citizens equally... Then we'll start all doctors out at O-2 to O-3 pay and nurses at E-5 to E-6 on the military/government pay scale.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esp_hOlFqiM

Now THAT would be general welfare... although in another socialist vein. A benefit to all equally.