Before the ink was dry on the Health Care Destruction Act of 2010, several states began filing lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of the act.
Now, there is no question that the act is unconstitutional. That's not the question. You CANNOT read the constitution (unless you are a lawyer/judge) and conclude after reading it that the federal government has ANY authority to fund health care. Of course, you would also be forced to conclude, if you REALLY thought about it, that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal funding of education and a whole host of other things the federal government does are ALSO unconstitutional.
Of course, lawyers and judges can't read.
Or so it seems. When they read something, they obviously don't read or understand it the same way that you and I do.
Where I have a problem with the Supreme Court's rulings on the constitutionality of ANYTHING is that they don't really look at the constitution and what its original intent was. They look at everything else. Previous rulings, case law, their liberal agenda, etc.
I've always looked at the constitution as a contract. The American people voted on it (in the 1700's) and it's Amendments (in the years following). What were the writers thinking it meant when they wrote it? What were the voters thinking it meant when they voted on it? There is no way the framers of the constitution envisioned our current government. In fact, our current government, and in particular, our current administration, were precisely the thing they were trying to AVOID when they wrote the document.
So, then, the question, really is this: Does this lawsuit REALLY stand a chance of succeeding. Given the liberal nature of the court and the way they tend to rule on these kinds of issues, my feeling is the Health Care Destruction bill will stand as is. I don't think the Supremes will strike it down. But I'm not a lawyer, and, frankly, I don't follow these kinds of things that closely.
What do you think?