Pronk Pops Show 67, April 2, 2012: Segment 0: U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Obamacare Mandates Or Forces American People To Buy Government Approved Insurance That They May Neither Need, Want or Afford–Young To Subsidize The Sick And Old–Unconstitutional And Illegal Power–Videos

Posted on March 28, 2012. Filed under: American History, Books, Budgetary Policy, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, Media, Medicine, Philosophy, Politics, Polls, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Resources, Science, Social Science, Tax Policy, Videos, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 67: April 2, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 66: March 26, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 65: March 9, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 64: February 29, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 63: February 22, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 62: February 15, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 61: February 8, 2012

Pronk Pops Show 60:February 1, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Segment 0:U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Obamacare Mandates Or Forces American People To Buy Government Approved Insurance That They May Neither Need, Want or Afford–Young To Subsidize The Sick And Old–Unconstitutional And Illegal Power–Videos

Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want – Live ’03 London

I saw her today at the reception
A glass of wine in her hand
I knew she was gonna meet her connection
At her feet was footloose man

You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you might find
You get what you need

I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, “We’re gonna vent our frustration
If we don’t we’re gonna blow a 50-amp fuse”

You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

I went down to the Chelsea drugstore
To get your prescription filled
I was standing in line with Mr. Jimmy
And man, did he look pretty ill
We decided that we would have a soda
My favorite flavor, cherry red
I sung my song to Mr. Jimmy
Yeah, and he said one word to me, and that was “dead”
I said to him

You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You get what you need

You get what you need–yeah, oh baby

I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her blood-stained hands

You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes well you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The key in Lochner is that we were talking about regulation of the States, right, and the States are not limited to enumerated powers. The Federal Government is. And it seems to me it’s an entirely different question when you ask yourself whether or not there are going to be limits in the Federal power, as opposed to limits on the States, which was the issue in Lochner.

SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court’s cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

SCOTUS Obamacare Individual Mandate Oral Arguments March 27, 2012

Obamacare, Mandates and Regulatory Confusion: Reason-Rupe Poll Results with Emily Ekins

32 Percent Favorable of New Health Care Law; 50 Percent Unfavorable

Emily Ekins | March 28, 2012

http://reason.com/poll/2012/03/28/32-favorable-of-new-health-care-law-50-u

Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Poll March 2012

http://reason.com/assets/db/13327241811317.pdf

AFTERBURNER: How to Steal Power

Yaron Answers: Should the Supreme Court Overturn Obamacare?

Special Report Examines ‘Substantial’ Cost Increase For President’s Health Law

Obamacare: Broken Promises

Andrew Napolitano Predicts 5-4 Obamacare Defeat!

Toobin: Mandate in grave trouble

“This Is A Train Wreck For The Obama Administration!” Jeff Toobin On Healthcare Supreme Court

Ron Paul Exposes Obamacare on Freedom Watch

Andrew Napolitano – Commerce Clause Gone Wild

David Rivkin Explains the Problem with ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate

Is Health Law’s Individual Mandate Constitutional? Legal Scholars Debate

Audio From Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Healthcare Mandate – Obamacare Part 1

Audio From Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Healthcare Mandate – Obamacare Part 2

Audio From Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Healthcare Mandate – Obamacare Part 3

Audio From Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Healthcare Mandate – Obamacare Part 4

Toobin: Obama healthcare reform law ‘in grave, grave trouble’

By Daniel Strauss – 03/27/12

“…A top legal analyst predicted Tuesday that the Obama administration’s healthcare reform legislation seemed likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in “trouble.” He called it a “trainwreck for the Obama administration.”

“This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong,” Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. “I think this law is in grave, grave trouble.”

Toobin’s observation came on the second day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

Earlier that day, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the deciding vote on whether to uphold the law, told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that there appeared to be a “very heavy burden of justification” on aspects of the law, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Toobin described Kennedy as “enormously skeptical” during the arguments Tuesday. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Yu7PFwBZo

Obamacare Mandates Justified by ‘Interstate Commerce’?The administration’s argument before the Supreme Court recycles an old trick.

By Thomas Sowell

“…Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who grew some wheat to feed his family and some farm animals. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined him for growing more wheat than he was allowed to grow under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which was passed under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

Filburn pointed out that his wheat wasn’t sold, so that it didn’t enter any commerce, interstate or otherwise. Therefore the federal governmenthad no right to tell him how much wheat (which never left his own farm) he could grow.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong to the states or to the people. So you might think that Filburn was right.

But the Supreme Court said otherwise. Even though the wheat on Filburn’s farm never entered the market, just the fact that “it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market” meant that it affected interstate commerce. So did the fact that the home-grown wheat could potentially enter the market.

The implications of this kind of reasoning reached far beyond farmers and wheat. Once it was established that the federal government could regulate not only interstate commerce itself, but anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on the powers of the federal government virtually disappeared.

Over the years, “interstate commerce” became magic words to justify almost any expansion of the federal government’s power, in defiance of the Tenth Amendment. That is what the Obama administration is depending on to get today’s Supreme Court to uphold the administration’s power to tell people that they have to buy the particular health insurance specified by the federal government. …”

“…Since virtually everything affects virtually everything else, however remotely, “interstate commerce” can by this kind of sophistry justify virtually any expansion of government power.

The principle that the legal authority to regulate X implies the authority to regulate anything that can affect X is a huge and dangerous leap of logic in a world where all sorts of things have some effect on all sorts of other things.

As an example, take a law that liberals, conservatives, and everybody else would agree is valid — namely, that cars have to stop at red lights. Local governments certainly have the right to pass such laws and to punish those who disobey them. No doubt people who are tired or drowsy are more likely to run through a red light than people who are rested and alert. But does that mean that local governments should have the power to order people when to go to bed and when to get up, because their tiredness can have an effect on the likelihood of their driving through a red light?

The power to regulate indirect effects is not a slippery slope. It is the disastrous loss of freedom that lies at the bottom of a slippery slope. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294623/obamacare-mandates-justified-interstate-commerce-thomas-sowell

Background Articles and Videos

Wheat, Weed, and ObamaCare: How the Commerce Clause Made Congress All-Powerful

The Consitutionality of the Individual Mandate

Cato’s Michael F. Cannon Discusses ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate

Mark Levin: ObamaCare And The Supreme Court (Part 1)

Mark Levin: ObamaCare And The Supreme Court (Part 2)

Mark Levin: ObamaCare And The Supreme Court (Part 3)

Jagadeesh Gokhale Details ObamaCare’s Medicaid Cost Increases

The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate 1-7-11

Thomas Sowell on the ineffectiveness of federal agencies

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

Dirty Harry Quotes

A man’s got to know his limitations

Dirty Harry IV – Too much sugar is bad for you

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 67, April 2, 2012: Segment 1: Ryan’s Long And Winding Road To U.S. Bankruptcy and Default–A Balanced Budget in 2040!–Tea Party Demands Better–Dead On Arrival–Ditto Obama’s Budget–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 67, April 2, 2012: Segment 2: The Big Squeeze–The Forced Downsizing of The U.S. Government–Rising National Debt Requires More Interest Payments–Cut Spending By At Least $1 Trillion Now!–Videos

Advertisements

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: