40 votes

CNS News : Scalia On ObamaCare Mandate : 'If The Government Can Do This, What Else Can It Not Do?'

(CNSNews.com) - In oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week over the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care plan’s requirement that individuals must buy health insurance, Justice Antonin Scalia posed to Obama’s solicitor general a fundamental question that the mandate raises about the nature of the U.S. government.

“If the government can do this, what else can it not do?” asked Scalia.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/scalia-obamacare-mandate-if-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The purpose of the entire Obamacare law

was to bring us to the point that the government will control everything.
That's why it was drawn-up and that's why it was passed.

The truth is that gov't is ALWAYS working on increasing their domination of the people. And the end goal is ALWAYS tyranny. The only thing that can stop them is the people, who must be ever vigilant in stopping the rise of tyranny, which they should KNOW the gov't will be trying to accomplish.

Freedom without responsibility and vigilance has never been, and will never be.

Everything the government does is a force or mandate

"Government is not reason or eloquent. It is force and like fire is a fearful master" ~ George Washington

the mandate is unconstitutional...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLyI3OPfrjQ well i said it in my video that romney care and obama care is basically the same thing its not about health care but Control.

Albert Camus — 'The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.'

It doesn't matter if its

It doesn't matter if its actually unconstitutional or not. It only matter if the government's court decides to say its unconstituional.

Justice Alito said it best

JUSTICE ALITO: "But isn't that really a small part of what the mandate is doing? You can correct me if these figures are wrong, but it appears to me that the CBO has estimated that the average premium for a single insurance policy in the non-group market would be roughly $5,800 in -- in 2016.

Respondents -- the economists who have supported the Respondents estimate that a young, healthy individual targeted by the mandate on average consumes about $854 in health services each year. So the mandate is forcing these people to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies for other purposes that the Act wishes to serve, but isn't -- if those figures are right, isn't it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else."

Just think about this for a

Just think about this for a second. People who say that this bill is constitutional are saying, basically, that the founders, though skeptical of the general government overreaching in freedom of speech, gun rights, religion, etc., nonetheless, thought the general government could force citizens to buy a product! How could they have made this mistake!

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

You Watch

If the mandate stays, It will open the door for them to you tell you what to eat and when to exercise in the name of insurance rates...Freakin 1984....

And Americans will go along

And Americans will go along with it too because in America pragmatic concerns always always always trump principles. Watch, they will uphold the mandate. I hope I'm wrong.

SteveMT's picture

Ron Paul believes that somehow, someway, they will,....

uphold this mandate. If they do, watch out for what follows. This is a case where I hope that Ron Paul is wrong. I'm sure that he hopes that he is wrong, too.

The scary part

is....Ron Paul is usually right in his predictions.

This would be one of the biggest events

of my lifetime.

If they start to deconstruct the "progress" made since the Progressive Era, we could begin to reclaim the country we once had. That is why the Obamacare decision and the Trayvon controversy, the birth control controversy, and all of these other bleeding heart drums are beginning to beat and will continue throughout the summer. There will be violence too. Their house of cards could begin to come apart and the leftists in government and all of the related quasi government enterprises will be in jeopardy. Trillions are on the line and a whole bunch of crony jobs and political influence too. If the rationale behind government intrusion via the commerce clause is undone, all bets are off.

We need to stand up for liberty now.

The only reason

That Obama is involved in the Trayvon shooting is so he can push his racist agenda and what I mean by that is, The government works hard to drive a wedge between black and white people an between rich and poor, It is a tactic to keep us all fighting each other to make us weaker, If we were to all stand together in the name of freedom we would win!

Yes, of course

The Democratic Party especially needs African-Americans to be angry so they continue to vote racial identity rather than apply critical thinking. Same with single women and gender identity politics.

I have a theory that these racial appeals are also designed to promote voter and election fraud in municipal districts. If you can continue to appeal to unfairness and victimization (the white man is out to get me) you can convince voter and election workers to do some things for you at the polls. In 2008 there were many urban districts that yielded 100% voter turnout.

"“By the way, I don't agree

"“By the way, I don't agree with you that the relevant market here is health care,” Scalia told Verrilli. “You're not regulating health care. You're regulating insurance. It's the insurance market that you're addressing and you're saying that some people who are not in it must be in it, and that's different from regulating in any manner commerce that already exists out there.”"

The money line!

He's right, this isn't about health care its about forcing people to buy insurance. If they uphold it you watch and see, the pharmaceutical lobby will be the next one to force people to buy their product, probably some vaccine that we will be forced to accept.

don't trust anyone in "media" for the truth

Or as Reagan famously said, "Trust but verify."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx

At this link you can find the 3 health care cases that were heard since monday. Also, all of the other cases the court has heard are posted.

I've listened to the arguements and read the transcripts.
There are really 3 cases that were heard.

First on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, second on what authority the congress has for the mandate (taxing or commerce clause), and the third was a discussion on whether IF the mandate is found unconstitutional what should be done with the rest of the 2700 pages.

In the first case, The govt claims that A. congress has the right to issue the mandate under the Taxing power B. under the commerce clause, the govt has the authority to regulate a markety, becasue we will all at one point or another need healthcare - we are all automatically "in the market" when we are born and can therefore be regulated i.e. forced to buy insurance under penalty.

The states claim that A. the text of the bill specifically refers to the mandate as a "penalty" and not a tax and so doesn't fall under the congress' tax authority - and if it is a tax it is a direct tax which is unlawful - and that never before has the Govt been able to tax someone for Not doing something and the rationale is not special to healthcare there is no bright line that can be drawn between the rational to force many to buy insurance becasue to not do so would drive cost up for those who do.. can be done in any market. B. That the bill attempts to regulate health insurance industry and not the health care industry - and so the congress is attempting to create a market that it can then regulate. B. The congress' expressed reason for creating the minimum coverage mandate and the community ratings is to offset the negative economic impact of congress' own mandates on the insurance industry to cover pre-existing conditions. So, the govt argues that without the mandate the scheme will collapse (death spiral is the terms from the congressional history)- so the states argue that this is ridiculous that the govt would for the first time in history use a direct mandate - the state wisely I think uses the govt's own arguements sillyness against them.

In the case of what to do IF the mandate is found unconstitutional the Govt pleads that if the mandate is invalidated then the court shoudl also remove only the community ratings and pre-existing conditions sections. The states argue that the mandate, community ratings etc. are the heart of this bill, that most of the other sections were attached to the bill to either win a vote or because it was the next train leaving the station - but the heart and core of the bill is the mandate and it is so interconnected that to find the mandate unconstitutional it would be best to find the whole law invalid and allow congress to start again with a clean slate.
A 3rd arguement from another party argued for just removign the mandate and allowing the pre-existing conditions and community rated exchanges to remain.

I've missed alot of stuff here becasue i'm just riffing it back from memory. But it's very interesting and so I encourage everyone to go an listen to these arguements.

The govt actually at one point argues that this mandate is an advancement of Liberty, it gives liberty to those who have health issues and can't have a full life without coverage.. it gives them liberty to have health care. The states argue that is a very funny concept of advancing liberty - forcing everyone to buy a product so that the few can have it more cheaply. Mr. Clement did an excellent job.... The solicitor general is everything I might imaging a lawyer that Obama would appoint would be. In fact all of the govt's lawers and those argueing in tandem were horrible. Give it a listen your self and don't parrot some blurb some website throws out. ;p

I have a new stance on MSM

Liars until proven Truthful.

A little late if you ask me

“If the government can do this, what else can it not do?” asked Scalia.

Lincoln settled this question a long time ago.

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Does this mean the Supremes are actually going to follow the....

.....Constitution? For a change?

They've got the talking part

They've got the talking part done. I still wouldn't be surprised if after all that they uphold it. It would be very unusual if the supreme court actually did somethign that limited the power of the government.

If they do not throw out Obamacare freedom is gone

I was reading the other day in part of Obama care, every American must be chipped with an ID chip by 2013
if I can find the Article I will post it.

it's page 999-1004 of the heathcare bill

plain as day.

There is also an article on the american conservative about this from 2010

"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

--Samuel Adams

I read the whole thing once,

I read the whole thing once, and never saw that, and I just looked at the pages you said and STILL did not see that. I am not saying it does not leave the door open for it, as I noticed in my first reading, but I do not see this here, at all. Please copy where u see it.

Government cannot lawfully do anything to you...

...if you are not harming anyone, stealing anything and honoring your contracts. The hidden evil being promoted here is to force all Americans to contract with GovCorp. (GovCorp is basically a Wal-Mart that people allow to "govern" them)

By forcing everyone into contract with GovCorp - no peaceful American will be beyond it's reach and control.