Judge Napolitano: House ObamaCare Repeal Has Real Teeth – Unconstitutional Health Exchanges

Judge Andrew Napolitano makes it clear that the House repeal of ObamaCare for the 31st time has  “real teeth to it,” and affirms that States which do not want to set up health care exchanges, legally do not have to set up health care exchanges. See the video below an listen to what Napolitano says about how Romney can handle ObamaCare with both the House and Senate controlled by Democrats.

Judge Andrew Napolitano

The following is most of the transcript. I’ve added a link to background information on Governor Rick Perry’s decision rejecting health care exchanges and Medicaid expansion

[JUDGE NAPOLITANO]…there is an Achilles heel to it [the statute]. The whole purpose of the statute, according to the President and it’s supporters, was to provide health care for everyone in the United States of America.

One of the keys to that was the State health insurance exchanges, basically expanding Medicaid for people who cannot get health insurance anywhere else. It would be paid. Ninety percent by the Federal Government, 10% by the States.

The numbers fluctuate. That’s a general ratio. THAT’S THE PART THAT WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court, because the Congress, when it ordered the States to set up these exchanges said ‘set them up – if you don’t not only will we not give you the 90% on this, we’re going to hold back the other Medicaid funds that we owe you.’

The Court said Congress cannot threaten the States with such financial devastation as to impair their sovereignty as States – so, Governor Perry [Texas] is absolutely correct when he says it is lawful for Texas not to set up the exchange. So is Governor Christie [New Jersey], so is the Governor of Florida, so is the Governor of Michigan.

[ANCHOR] So what happens Judge?

[JUDGE NAPOLITANO] That’s the $64,000 question. If the whole purpose of the statute was to provide health care for those who can’t get it elsewhere, there are 17 million people who were led to believe they could go to these exchanges. It will exist in New York because a Democratic Governor and a Democratic legislature want it, but in the vast majority of the country – the statute was challenged by 26 states – these exchanges will not exist.

Who will pay for them? The Federal Government, which means taxpayers.

If the [U.S.] House has to appropriate funds for these exchanges, and refuses to do so, they will not exist, so this exercise in the House that appears just a political battle between Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi, has real teeth to it, because the President, after election day, whether he wins or loses, is going to come to the House saying ‘give me the money I need to fund the exchanges’ and this House will say ‘no way.’

[ANCHOR] So what happens along the way – there is an election?

[JUDGE NAPOLITANO] If Mitt Romney is elected President, he has a lot of discretion as to how to enforce laws. Let’s say Mitt Romney is elected President and Democrats control both Houses [Chambers], what can he do? A Lot! There is a lot of discretion in the statute. For example: the IRS is in the Treasury Department. The Secretary of the Treasury is appointed by the President. He could basically say, ‘you know, I want those things that John Roberts says are taxes – they’re really penalties. I don’t feel like penalizing people in a recession, so we are not going to collect them. There is a lot of discretion the President has.

Thanks to Terresa Monroe’s Noisy Room for the video. See a second important video of Napolitano explaining how the IRS can and will force you to pay for ObamaCare – which includes putting a lien on your house!

Judge Napolitano on Illegal Health Exchanges (video)

Linked at BadBluethe baaaddest news on the planet!

Linked at Grumpy Opinions – thanks!

Linked by Doug Ross and Larwyn – thank you!

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Pingback: Maggie’s Notebook | Grumpy Opinions()

  • Can the IRS really make people pay the penalty tax?

    “Under the original ObamaCare, Congress commanded us to own insurance. But under the new ObamaCare, Congress taxes us for not owning what Congress cannot command us to own. (My CPU is still collating, Dave. I need more data.) In any event, one thing most Americans know is that you don’t mess with the IRS. So if the penalty in ObamaCare is now a tax, what is the penalty for not paying that new tax? Well, on page 170 of the actual law, we read:


    any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed

    by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to

    any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.


    shall not-

    (i) file notice of lien with respect to any property

    of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty

    imposed by this section, or

    (ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.”

  • So the next step to repeal Obamacare, between now and the election, must be for the House to repeal ALL of the “taxes” in Obamacare including the individual mandate “tax.” I wish it was my idea, butt the credit goes to Molsterman. I reported it in my Molsterman Report #2 (7-03-2012). It goes like this: the Senate rammed Obamacare up our b… uh… passed Obamacare under budget reconciliation rules, which made it filibuster proof: only 51 votes needed. Ipso fatso, it can be repealed the same way. I predict that there are enough vulnerable Dems in the Senate to put a bill repealing all 21 Obamacare taxes, including the individual mandate “tax” on Big Guy’s desk for him to sign OR veto before the election.

    We win either way. Either the taxes are repealed, gutting Obamacare permanently, or Obama and his Obot D-words go on record as imposing the biggest tax in the history of the Milky Way. No more babbling that it’s a penalty, not a tax. Then, President Romney repeals it in 2013.

    Butt it’s going to take a ton of letters to our Congressional Reps to, as Larry the Cable Guy says, “Git ‘er done.” I’ve written mine, are the rest of you in?

  • MOTUS and Jim, within minutes of the Ruling, Bachmann called for reconciliation. The entire Oklahoma delegation is Republican and very conservative, with the exception of Dem. Dan Boren, who has voted each time with Republicans for repeal. I will write and ask why this isn’t happening.

    The question is, why are they not doing this. As we came close to 2010 elections, remember Republicans said they would defund it bit by bit.

    I would like for every single Republican in both Chambers get to the Floor and accept that it is a tax, and then assert they did not vote for a tax, so there is no authorization or appropriation. We need to hear it loud and often.

    Yes, I will write to mine, and I will also start a Twitter assault against ALL congressmen because that’s the only way a non-constitutent can get to them.

    Anyone here up for an organized Twitter campaign?