American Daughter is sharing the article below which explains why the Supreme Court will likely view ObamaCare (health care) as unconstitutional. It’s very interesting, and written by someone who has been to court under the protection of the Tenth Amendment and won. See a link at the bottom of the detailing why ObamaCare is not legal under the Commerce Clause, as Democrat leadership would have you believe.
….there’s another key provision in Obamacare that probably violates the Tenth Amendment: the state exchanges.
The Tenth Amendment went for so many years without being used to
strike down any law that it came to be regarded as what is called a
“dead letter” in the Constitution, meaning a provision that says some
sort of obvious statement, but that isn’t actually used by the courts
Then, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court shocked the legal world by
striking down two laws for violating the Tenth Amendment. The first was
New York v. United States in 1992, where the Court struck down a
federal law requiring states to pass state laws for the disposal of
radioactive waste, and to issue regulations for implementing those
laws. Then in Printz v. United States in 1997, the Court struck down a
provision of the Brady Act — a federal gun-control law — that required
state and local law enforcement to run background checks on handgun
From these two cases emerged the anti-commandeering
principle, holding that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal
government from commandeering — or ordering — any branch of state
government to do anything. The states are sovereign and answer only to their voters, not to Washington, D.C.
Therein lies the problem for the Senate’s Obamacare bill. It
requires each state to pass laws setting up a statewide non-profit
insurance exchanges. It then requires the states to pass regulations
for implementing those laws. And it further requires the states to
dedicate staff and spend state money to administer those programs.
In most respects, this is a straight-out repeat of those 1992 and
1997 cases. The main difference is that Obamacare violates the
anti-commandeering principle in a far more severe and egregious way
than those previous laws ever did.
This is really stunning. If New York and Printz had been decided as
far back as 1910, then maybe you could imagine Congress deciding to
roll the dice with a completely new Supreme Court a century later. But
these are recent cases with conservative outcomes, and the only
difference is that the Court has become a bit more conservative then it
was in the 1990s when it decided those two cases….
The only way the Dems can get around this is to drag out the
constitutional challenges until Obama, in a second term as president,
may have a chance to replace two conservative Supreme Court justices
The American public must deny Obama a second term, and the certain destruction of states’ rights.
Jay Printz is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle
Association; a 26-year veteran Montana Sheriff, retired in 1999; U.S.
Marine and Vietnam combat veteran. He spent a dangerous year in Iraq in
2004-2005, serving as an advisor to Iraqi national security forces. He
brought a successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge against the “Brady
Law” in the landmark case, Printz v. United States.
Read why ObamaCare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause:
ObamaCare is Unonstitutional: Counting the Ways Health Care is Unconstitutional