When Mitt Says I'll Repeal ObamaCare, He Means It

By Jared Allebest 

Conservative Samizdat

Ever since Mitt Romney has been running for President, he's been repeatedly said he would repeal ObamaCare. Recently, Mitt Romney was on Piers Morgan Tonight talking about ObamaCare: 

Many high profile conservatives such as Representative Paul Ryan,Ann Coulter and Fred Barnes are confident that if Mitt Romney becomes the next President of the United States, he will honor his campaign promise to repeal ObamaCare. 2012 will be the year Obama gets out of office and his health care law will be repealed. But that will only happen IF do all that you can to help Mitt Romney win.

See more of Jared Allebest / Conservative Samizdat here........................

http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Why More Conservative Supreme Court Justices Are Needed

By Jared Allebest
Conservative Samizdat

Normally, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh but there wasn't anything else good on the radio and so I decided to tune in to Rush. And he helped me to see the light on ObamaCare:

The brilliance of the United States Constitution is its timelessness. It applies to the human condition until eternity, because it is a document devoted to maintaining, proclaiming, and maintaining the freedom and liberty of the individual. It's the greatest document of liberty and freedom ever written by human beings, and it is a target. And it has just been dealt a very severe blow. And to sit here and argue over whether what remains because of the Supreme Court ruling is a tax or a penalty is to lose the argument in November. What are we left with, after all of that? Tax penalty, Roberts brilliantly left a secret plan for us in there. It will manifest in years down the road. What are we left with? We're left with Obamacare. We have Obamacare. It's intact every bit as much as it was.


Like many people, I got caught up in looking at the silver lining and analyzing how clever Justice Roberts was in the wake and I failed to see that whatever silver lining that exists is completely overshadowed by the fact that ObamaCare exists. The debate between Obama and Romney about the penalties or tax in their health plans is stupid. This silly debate will no doubt show up in the Presidential debates in the fall.


Given how ObamaCare was upheld, I am nervous about how the Supreme Court Justices will rule on the upcoming legal challenges that are on the way to the Supreme Court:


The next wave of lawsuits likely wouldn’t put the whole law at stake, as the challenge to the individual mandate could have. But they’re going after pieces of the law that happen to be red meat for many conservative voters — like the law’s contraception mandate and a new Medicare panel that Republicans call a “rationing board.”


And one possible legal challenge, which would try to block the feds from offering subsidies in a federal health insurance exchange, is meant to exploit a loophole in the law. But it could also be a good “messaging hit” — allowing them to attack the subsidies they see as a budget-busting new entitlement.


The fact that the Supreme Court will ruling on individual parts of the ACA worries me since the Court could uphold these parts of the law or they can chip away at the law by holding the various parts of the law unconstitutional. What's even more disturbing is that we find that Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and parts of the minority opinion and that we will never know why he ended up upholding ObamaCare. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the additional challenges to ObamaCare, we are still stuck with all the taxes in the law and the additional taxes that are forthcoming in the near future. We are also stuck with other provisions of the law that will do great damage to our nation's economy.


We have to repeal this law. The only option that is left to us, thanks to the Supreme Court, is to elect Mitt Romney as our next President. But there's another reason why we need to elect Mitt Romney. What Chief Justice John Roberts did was make it very clear that we need more conservatives on the Supreme Court bench. We can never afford to have a Supreme Court Justice switch on the American people at the last minute. By electing Mitt Romney, we will have the opportunity to put more conservative judges on the Supreme Court. Thus, we need a conservative majority not only to keep the liberals in the minority but now we see we need them in the event one or two justices decide to go with the liberal minority, we still have a conservative majority.

See more of Jared Allebest / Conservative Samizdat here.............
http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Liberals Understand The Impact of The Supreme Court Ruling On ObamaCare Better Conservatives Do

By Jared Allebest
 Conservative Samizdat

Those conservatives who are angry with Chief Justice John Robets for upholding ObamaCare fail to see that he was able swing the Supreme Court to the right and to make it easier for future Supreme Court justices to apply the proper and constitutional analysis to legal issues that will come before the court. 

However, Liberals clearly understand just how significant this ruling is for the conservative movement: 

In the term that ended last week, the Supreme Court reached a liberal outcome in cases involving President Obama’s health care law, Arizona’s draconian immigration statute and mandatory life sentences for juveniles. But the conservative majority also laid down a cache of weapons that future courts can use to attack many of the legislative achievements of the New Deal and the Great Society — including labor, environmental, civil rights and consumer protection laws — and to prevent new progressive legislation. Far from being a source of jubilation, the term may come back to haunt liberals. 

...

The Roberts court has intensified the effort to reduce federal power. That the individual mandate was upheld should not overshadow the court’s ruling on Medicaid expansion — the part of the ruling that is most likely to affect other legislation in the near future.

For the first time since the New Deal, the court struck down an exercise of Congress’s spending power. It held that Congress lacked the power to deny Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand their coverage. Chief Justice Roberts — joined by the liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — held that while the government can deny additional Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand their coverage, it cannot penalize them by rescinding current Medicaid payments.

Legal conservatives have come to the same conclusion once they overcame the initial shock of the decision and actually read the Supreme Court's decision. Virginia Attorney General  Ken Cuccinelli has echoed the liberal's fear concerning the implication of Chief Justice Robert's opinion. Famous conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer also acknowledges Robert's contribution to moving theconservative agenda at the Supreme Court. 

The only thing that liberals can be happy about is that ObamaCare has been upheld.  They don't care how it was upheld so long that it was found to be constitutional.  With all the liberals and progressives that I have talked to about this decision, they are not worried that it was upheld as a government tax. The taxes do not bother them because all they wanted to was to keep ObamaCare alive at any cost. The reason why they are not concerned about the fact that ObamaCare has morphed into ObamaCareTax is because they know that once an entitlement program is in place, it is virtually impossible to kill and as a result, the program achieves legislative immortality. Liberals want ObamaCare to be around foreover and they don't care about the source that keeps it alive. They also don't care about theconsequences entitlements have on countries that implement them. 

In contrast, conservatives wanted this law to be killed immediately. However, Chief Justice John Roberts made the correct, legal and constitutional decision of leaving the responsibility of killing the law in the hands of the American people and its elected representatives.Furthermore, he made it easier for people to repeal Obamacare because by classifying this program as a tax, it becomes budgetary issue that requires 51 votes to get rid of it, not 60. He also provided the American people with the motivation to get rid of this law because there are two things that Americans hate the the most and that is taxes and ObamaCare. By merging the two things Americans hate into one, its a lethal and explosive combination for Obama and the Democrats, especially as Americans go to the ballot box in November. Mike Flynn, writing for Breitbart, points out that the "ruling will probably go down in history as the most effective GOP voter turnout operation ever."

Finally, given that Democrats love enacting new taxes and raising taxes on the American people, Chief Justice John Roberts made it difficult for Congress to raise taxes in the future since all future government programs will be labeled as a tax. Conservatives arejustified in their concerns that the courts will defer to Congress in calling government programs a tax and uphold it on those grounds. What these conservatives forget is that given that Americans loathe taxes, Roberts increased the  political risks for Congress in passing new government programs. Thus, Congress will be more reluctant to create new government programs for fear of facing their constituent's ire for creating new taxes. That's the theory, at least.

Liberals and progressives fully understand the impact of Chief Justice Robert's decisions while Conservatives are still trying to come to terms with the Supreme Court decision rather looking beyond the holding and looking at the long term implications of the holding. Chief Justice Roberts has moved the conservative agenda on the Supreme Court far down the field and the Left knows it. It will take a while for Conservatives to see that he made the right decision and once they do, they will realize how powerful Chief Justice Robert's decision is for conservatives.

By Jared Allebest / Conservative Samizdat...........................................

http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli: Supreme Court Health Care Decision Limits The Power Of The Government

By Jared Allebest

Conservative Samizdat

As I said yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts did the right thing by upholding ObamaCare in such a way as to lay the ground work for the eventual demise of ObamaCare and at the same time drastically limited the Federal Government. 

Virginia Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli gives a brief interview with the Daily Caller and explains that over time, conservatives will see this landmark decision that reverses the growth of government which is something the Supreme Court hasn't done since the New Deal. Watch the clip below:

Many conservatives are angry and upset with Chief Justice John Roberts. There are unpleasant pictures of John Roberts floating around on facebook, blogs and conservative websites. I understand their reaction but they are only looking at the short term goal of repealing ObamaCare and were disapointed that didn't happen. 

However, legal conservatives such as myself, Ken Cuccinelli and others are quiet happy with this decision because the long term goal of limiting the power of the federal government was accomplished and that this reduction in the size, scope and power is a permanent and lasting change on our government. As a result, John Roberts made a wise decision by going after the long term goals of conservatism rather than focusing on the short term of goal of striking down ObamaCare. 

See Jared Allebest / Conservative Samizdat here .................

http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Why Chief Justice Justice John Roberts Made The Right Decision On ObamaCare

By Jared Allebest

Conservative Samizdat

Given that I have been extremely busy lately with my law work, I haven't had time to keep up on my blog. However, I would like to share my thoughts on the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare today. I'd like to my observations about Chief Justice John Roberts which will help me unpack my thoughts on ObamaCare.

Many people on both the Left and the Right are surprised that Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority in upholding ObamaCare. While the Left is overjoyed with him, the Right are not only surprised by his position but there seems to be a bit of a mystery as to when he decided to uphold ObamaCare. For me, I'm not interested in solving that mystery and quite frankly I don't care when or why he switched. 

What I do care about is the impact of his decision on our country. I haven't read the entire decision yet (I'll probably get around to it this weekend) but unlike other conservatives, I am happy with the fact that he joined the majority in upholding ObamaCare. Let me explain why. 

Prior to the ruling conservatives were worried that if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was held constitutional, then it would give Congress unlimited regulatory power. But by holding that ObamaCare as unconstitutional under the Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, he has halted the expansion of that power and has now set the stage to shrink the Commerce Clause back to its proper constitutional boundaries: 

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not tocompel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Chief Justice Roberts may have made a smart and crafty move by giving Obama limited political victory while holding that ObamaCare is unconstitutional under he Commerce clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Spending Clause.  

When I say that Chief Justice Roberts gave Obama a political victory, its a limited victory and its a win that may not last very long. In fact, I believe that Roberts intentionally and cleverly designed it to be a short term victory by holding it to be a constitutionally valid exercize of Congress' power to tax: 

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.

How short could this victory be? It could be less than a month. 

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has promised to hold a vote on July 11th to repeal ObamaCare after Congress gets back from its July 4th recess. House Speaker John Boehner is also behind the effort to repeal this law as quickly as possible.  But a full repeal is not likely to happen. The vote to repeal it will certainly pass in the House where the Republicans are a majority but not in the Senate where Democrats have a slim majority.

The victory could come as short as 130 days when America goes to the ballot box to decide to either keep the current President or get a new one. As Mitt Romney explains it, the only way to repeal ObamaCare is to get rid of Obama. Mitt Romney has repeatedly promised that he will repeal ObamaCare on his first day in office. 

However, voting for Mitt Romney to be our new President won't fully repeal ObamaCare. We need a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. We already have a Republican majority in the House and we need to keep that majority in 2012. We also need to make the Democrats a minority in Congress by getting as many Republicans in the Senate as possible.

But lets get back to small victory that Chief Justice John Roberts gave to Obama. By limiting the constitutionality of ObamaCare to Congress power to tax, he's has laid the groundwork for Congress to repeal it very easily. Congress can do whatever it wants with taxes. They can raise taxes, lower taxes or eliminate it all together.

Nancy Pelosi famously told the American people that we had to pass ObamaCare to find out what it is in it. Republicans charged that the federal individual mandate was a tax and Obama denied that accusation.  

Americans hate taxes. And they also hate ObamaCare just as much.  And that's a lethal combination, especially for an incumbent President running for reelection. 

Americans will not be happy to find out that the Democrats lied to them for denying it was a tax and the Supreme Court did what Nancy Pelosi asked the American people to do by looking what is in the law and Congress passed the law only to find out that it was...another tax increase on the American people. That means that 26 million people or roughly around 70-75 percent of the people who make less than $200,000 a year, will now be paying a new additional tax which is estimated to be a $1.7 trillion tax over the first decade.

f you think about it, declaring ObamaCare as constitutionally valid tax increase is such an intelligent yet simple and elegant way of repealing ObamaCare since he properly placed the responsibility of repealing it back to Congress (where it should belong) and the American people.  

Thus, Obama's victory is a limited and hollow one since Roberts is essentially saying that Obama is a tax loving Democrat which leaves nothing really good for the President to cheer about during the election season:

Republicans would have preferred the court overturn the health care bill, an act that would have underscored Obama's biggest liability -- the perception among voters, including those who like and trust him, that he has been ineffective. 

But you can count on them to use Roberts' bill-saving justification to label Obama a tax-and-spend liberal.

"I'm sure they'll nail us on taxes and I'm sure it will work," said a senior White House official speaking on condition of anonymity. "But, given the alternative, that's a bitter pill I'm ready to swallow."

By upholding ObamaCare, Obama's victory is a short lived victory for the President since it leaves him in an politically uncomfortable position for the rest of the election year and may end up costing him his job:

Obama is boxed in. What is he to do? He can't criticize the Court for judicial activism, as it upheld the law (putting aside the way the Court limited the Medicaid provisions, which are not particularly salient to voters). The decision undercuts a potential theme of his campaign -- that a conservative Court is out of control. And yet Obama can't trumpet the decision either, since it states that Democrats overreached in trying to justify the law under the Commerce Clause. Worse yet, it calls the mandate something that Democrats didn't want it to be: a tax.

Conversely, the decision may be the optimal result for Mitt Romney. If the Court had struck down the mandate, it would have taken off the table an issue that Republican base voters care tremendously about. But in upholding the law, the Court didn't just leave that issue on the table; it gave Romney tremendous ammunition he can use to criticize Obama as a tax raiser.

There was much contrarian wisdom floating around prior to the decision about how a defeat might be helpful to Obama, as he could run against the Court. Jeffrey Toobin criticized this as "nonsense": "Winners win, and losers lose." We'll never know if Obama could have potentially won by losing the health care case. But the coming months will tell whether he might have lost by winning.

In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts did the right thing by joining the liberal 5-4 majority by working within the system to engineer the eventual demise of ObamaCare. 

See more of Jared Allebest here.......................
 http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/ 

ObamaCare Unconstitutional, RomneyCare Constitutional

By Jared Allebest
Conservative Samizdat

The Supreme Court of the United States has announced that it has has decided hear ObamaCare in this term rather than next term. According to the National Journal, the Supreme Court has asked that the parties focus their arguments to three main issues: the individual mandate, severability, and jurisdiction.
The fact that the Supreme Court has chosen to take this issue on now will have a big impact on the 2012 election especially if Mitt Romney wins the GOP nomination and faces off against Obama in the general election.


Regardless of who wins the Presidential election, ObamaCare will be most certainly held unconstitutional but explain that the individual mandate is constitutional at the state level like in Massachusetts under Governor Romney.


In other words, ObamaCare is unconstitutional whereas RomneyCare is constitutional.
Dr. Matt Moody, who isn't a lawyer, has given a good legal analysis why Obama's health care law is constitutional and why Mitt Romney's health care law is:


Federalism
For the 21% of Massachusetts citizens who don't prefer RomneyCare, moving to another State to escape perceived government oppression only works when 49 other States have constitutional power to create their own unique "experiments" in governance. Thus, when a limited Federal Government steadily morphs into a dominating Central Government, constitutionally-defined Federalism slowly erodes. James Madison succinctly described the principle of Federalism with these words:


The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.


Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.


The opposite of Federalism occurs when Americans have an overreaching central government that, in the words of Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, "seeks to plan and control virtually every aspect of our lives and our economy, from health care, to energy, to automobile manufacturing, to banking and insurance." When "We the People" look to central government to take care of every problem, the power and importance State governance is diminished — which is the opposite of Federalism.


Here's how Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandies described Federalism:
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.


In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), Justice Brandeis wrote the opinion for a 6-2 majority; Brandeis ruled that there is no such thing as a "federal general common law" in cases involving diversity jurisdiction (interstate lawsuits). This Supreme Court decision overturned Swift v. Tyson (1842) — precedent law which had been in place for 96 years. This landmark ruling meant that federal courts must apply the law of the State where the legal injury occurred. This High Court decision strengthened the sovereignty of States, and reversed a trend toward centralizing government power.


As established by the Founding Fathers through the United States Constitution, federal government was intended to be limited with "few and defined" powers. But in direct defiance of Original Intent, ever since the New Deal, federal government has gradually grown larger and larger, gaining more and more power — that's not Federalism, that's not what the Founding Fathers put in place.


Why the ObamaCare Mandate is Unconstitutional


ObamaCare is Unconstitutional because the 2,700 page bill is not just about Affordable Health Care for all Americans; instead, ObamaCare is an enormous usurpation of power that pushes far beyond the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.


To justify ObamaCare, the federal government must find authority to do so in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution — wherein the federal government is delegated enumerated powers that are, as James Madison described, "few and defined" in contrast to State powers that are "numerous and indefinite."


In both the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the federal government has tried to find justification for the Obama-Care Mandate in three clauses from Article 1 Section 8 — the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.


Here's why each of these clauses fail to justify the ObamaCare Mandate.


Commerce Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify ObamaCare through the "Commerce Clause." Here's how the United States Constitution describes that power:
The Congress shall have Power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Here is why invoking the Commerce Clause fails: It is clear that "doing nothing" is NOT an act of commerce. Thus "doing nothing" cannot be regulated by the Federal Government via the Commerce Clause. In contrast, if the act of "doing nothing" on the part of some citizens, impacts Life, Liberty, and Happiness with a State, that State can legislate Mandates for the benefit of all State residents.


But the federal issue is not that easy: One Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, raised a question of "undercutting" in regard to regulating Interstate Commerce. Hence the question arises: Will an American citizen's choice to NOT purchase a good or service (health insurance) have an effect upon Interstate Commerce that "undercuts" a broader regulatory scheme of Interstate Commerce?


But this question jumps the gun! The "act of non-commerce" that is alleged to undercut a broader regulatory scheme, is a commerce question originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate, in the first place. This means, that the Federal Government is both attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (mandating everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created."


In other words, the constitutional regulation of "Commerce . . . among the several States" is Commerce that the States originate/create; thereafter, the Federal Government has constitutional power to regulate that State-Initiated Commerce.


So even if "doing nothing" does have an effect upon the regulation of Interstate Commerce, this legal logic leap frogs over the prior question, a question that the Supreme Court has never ruled on: Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power in the first place, to require individual citizens to purchase a product or service — can the Fed force citizens to buy health insurance?


According to the Federal Judges who have ruled in the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the answer is "no!" — the Commerce Clause does not justify the regulation of non-commerce among the States — acts of non-commerce originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate in the first place.


Necessary & Proper Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify Obama-Care through the Constitution's "Necessary and Proper Clause," which grants Congressional powers that are not necessarily enumerated powers but always directly buttress an enumerated power. In an 1819 Supreme Court decision, Justice John Marshall wrote that Congressional Authority via the Necessary and Proper Clause, while broad, "its authority is not unbridled." Thus Congress has only power to enact laws that are "within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." The Necessary and Proper Clause states:


The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Notice that Congress is empowered to make "necessary and proper" Laws specifically to carry "into Execution the foregoing Powers" — referring to the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. In other words, mandating that a person must buy health insurance needs to be justified, in the first place, by the few and defined powers listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. So the Necessary and Proper Clause can only be invoked as one of the enumerated powers is also invoked. That is why Judge Henry Hudson ruled as he did in the Virginia Lawsuit against Obama-Care.


Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the Obama-Care mandate “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.” (p. 24) "If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such a provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution." (p. 19)


General Welfare Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify the Obama-Care mandate via the "General Welfare Clause," a clause that is embedded within Congressional Taxation Power. But to invoke the General Welfare Clause, the Government must first establish that the "penalty" for not buying Health Insurance — the very "penalty" spoken of in the 2700 pages behemoth called Obama-Care — is really a tax, and not a penalty.


While the Federal Government does have taxation power via Article 1 Section 8, here's the problem:


In the effort to pass ObamaCare through Congress, President Obama and the authors of Obama-Care played politics with words; trying to distance themselves from the perception of higher "taxes," the President, the Obama-Care authors, and Democrat Senators and Congressmen all called the monetary assessment for failure to purchase health insurance a penalty — and not a tax!


This is precisely why Judge Henry Hudson pointed to the historical record of "pre-enactment representations," where both the "Executive and Legislative branches" consistently called the "penalty" for failure to purchase healthcare insurance, a "penalty" and not a "tax." Thus, Federal Judge ruled that the General Welfare Clause has no force.


NEVERTHELESS, even if the penalty were deemed a tax, there is still a huge Constitutional problem this virtually impossible to overcome: All federal taxes, save income taxes, must be assessed proportionally according to State populations — this is called a "Capitation" Tax.


A Little Known Fact about Federal Taxation: All Federal Taxes must be Proportional to State Populations


Even if the penalty for failure to purchase health insurance were a tax, and not a penalty, here's another constitutional problem. All taxes laid by the Federal Government, save income taxes, must be proportional to the populations of each State.


Article I Section 9
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Again, the only Constitutional exception to a "capitation" Tax, proportionally paid among the several States, is the federal income tax. Since income tax is NOT a "capitation" Tax, that is why Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:


16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Because the Obama-Care tax/penalty is NOT an income tax or a "capitation" tax, proportional to State populations, this means the Obama-Care tax/penalty is NOT Constitutional — and thus NOT legal.


Police Powers
Within a Constitutional context, the term "Police Powers" has a broader definition that goes beyond "law enforcement." The root of the word "police" is "polis" which means "city" or "state." The root "polis" is found in the word "metropolis." — metra = mother + polis = city, hence Metropolis is the Mother City.
Police Powers refer to powers held primarily by Cities and States; thus, Police Powers literally means polis powers, in other words, City or State Powers. The United States Constitution directly empowers the States to regulate the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of the citizenry. The exercise of police power takes the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through legal consequences and even through physical coercion — this is the common connotation of "police" as "law enforcement."


Again, Police Powers are broader than the common understand associated with the word "police." Because the federal government has limited powers granted by the Constitution, it does not have a general police power directly over the U.S. citizenry, as the states do. Clearly, certain enumerated powers stipulated in Article 1, Section 8 empower federal government to act on matters of foreign relations and border security.


United States Constitution: Article 1 Section 8
Historically, it was the States that created the Federal Government and granted specific powers through the Constitution. Congress may exercise only the eighteen 18 enumerated powers explicitly outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, as follows:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;


To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;


To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;


To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;


To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


To provide and maintain a Navy;


To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And


To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


All other powers to regulate the general welfare, morals, health, and safety of the citizenry are held by the States, as specifically granted in the Tenth 10th Amendment. Given that the States created the Federal Government, and then gave it power to regulate Interstate Commerce, we understand that decisions to originate Commerce in the first place, resides with the States.


Dr Matt's Intriguing Insight: ObamaCare is both attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (forcing everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created, as provided by the commerce clause."


If the power to require citizens to purchase goods or services is NOT enumerated among the 18 clauses of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, then the Federal Government does NOT have that power.


The Necessary and Proper Clause
Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18 is known as The Necessary and Proper Clause, and is stated thus:
The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


During discussions of the proposed constitution, this clause provoked controversy: Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power; in contrast, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution — Alexander Hamilton defended this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers.


Arguing in Federalist No. 44, James Madison concurred with Hamilton, stating that without this clause the constitution would be a "dead letter." At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace civil liberties (e.g., liberty from federal powers that force citizens to purchase particular goods or services).


The General Welfare Clause
In the United States Constitution, the "General Welfare" provision is found in the Taxing and Spending Clause as follows:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Through clarifications by Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall, the mention of "general welfare" within the Taxing and Spending Clause was never intended to give unlimited power to the federal government.


Here's how Thomas Jefferson explained the general welfare clause: “the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum [according to pleasure] for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.


Jefferson's statement suggests that the "general welfare" of the people would be an aim reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment. And because the 10th Amendment reserves all rights and powers to the States, that are not enumerated to the Federal Government, thus, it is the States that would address concerns of matters of welfare of the people — whether general or specific.


According to Jefferson, the welfare of the Union, as opposed to the more specific welfare of the people [living within the Union], is the purpose for federal taxation and spending. The "Union" being the collective coalition of 50 states.


In a 1824 ruling of Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall described in an "obiter dictum" [said in passing] the following limit to the General Welfare Clause: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. . . . Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." In other words, "general welfare" must be defined within the enumerated powers of the federal government.


Two authors of the The Federalist papers offered interpretations of the general welfare clause:


James Madison maintained that spending must be tied to one of the specifically enumerated federal powers — such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military. Madison argued that the General Welfare Clause is not a direct grant of power, but a statement of purpose that qualifies the taxation power.


Alexander Hamilton offered his interpretation of "general welfare" after the Constitution had been ratified. He argued that federal spending, as an enumerated power, could be done independently to benefit the general welfare — such as to assist national agricultural or educational needs. However such federal spending should be general in nature and would not favor a specific section of the country.


The 9th Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust all basic and fundamental rights. The Bill of Rights is the name given to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. It was James Madison who introduces these amendments, thus it is significant to note Madison's words:


"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


The 10th Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Based upon how Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens ruled in United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison, and Gonzales v. Raich, they interpret the Interstate Commerce Clause to have few limits, if any. These four Justices have ruled in favor of Federal Government regulation 3 out of 3 times — even when the issues were NOT directly about commerce, nor about interstate dealings.
Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens will likely rule that requiring citizens to buy Health Insurance, is something that the Federal Government can do under the Interstate Commerce Clause — again, here Clause #3 from Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution:


The Congress shall have power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Justices Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor have not made rulings on the Commerce Clause yet. If reputations for being conservative or liberal mean anything, then Roberts and Alito may support Commerce Clause Limits, and Sotomayor would broadly interpret the Commerce Clause as granting powers for the Fed to regulate. The term "broadly interpret" usually means ignoring the original intent of the Founding Fathers.


As for Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, . . . Thomas has come down on the side of Limits to the Commerce Clause three 3 out of 3 times, with Scalia and Kennedy ruling 2 twice for Commerce Clause limitations and once for federal government regulation.
Scalia and Kennedy will likely cast the swing votes on the matter. When the Supreme Court Justices eventually rule on the Virginia Law Suit, they will do so based upon the following precedent cases that involve the Interstate Commerce Clause:


Supreme Court Cases relating to the Commerce Clause
1942 - Wickard v. Filburn
In order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, the U.S. government imposed federal limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer. Filburn was growing more than the federal limits, and was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine -- even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.


Ruling: In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the "Agricultural Adjustment Act." The intended rationale of this federal law was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The court ruled that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Majority: Jackson, joined by Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Byrnes


1995 - United States v. Lopez
Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. In 1992 he carried a concealed weapon into the school. Confronted by school authorities, Lopez admitted to having the weapon and was charged with violation of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.


Ruling: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals: While Congress has broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power is limited, and does not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns — especially when there is no evidence that carrying them affects the economy substantially.


This was the first Supreme Court case since Wickard v. Filburn to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist identified three broad categories of activity that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause: (1) channels of interstate commerce, (2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and (3) activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce


In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.


Majority: Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence: Kennedy, joined by O'Connor
Concurrence: Thomas
Dissent: Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
Dissent: Stevens
Dissent: Souter
2000 - United States v. Morrison


In 1994, the United States Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act. That fall a Virginia Tech freshman, Christy Brzonkala, was allegedly assaulted by Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, members of the school's football team. A state grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to charge either man with a crime. Brzonkala then filed suit under the Violence Against Women Act.


Ruling: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, to pass the "Violence Against Women Act." Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist held that "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision."


Majority: Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence: Thomas
Dissent: Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent: Breyer, joined by Stevens; joined by Souter and Ginsburg (Points 1 and 2 only)


2005 - Gonzales v. Raich
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. California was one of eight states that allowed medicinal use of marijuana. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown marijuana to relieve pain; her use was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law -- the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.


Ruling: The decision was 6-3 in favor of the Federal Government's ability to regulate: Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, to prevent or limit access to marijuana for other uses.


Majority: Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.


Concurrence: Scalia


Dissent: O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas (Points 1 and 2 only)


Dissent: Thomas


Scalia's Concurring Opinion:


“As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. . . . This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”


Again, Scalia voted in favor of Commerce Clause limitations in Lopez and in Morrison.


O'Connor's Dissenting Opinion:


"Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently."


"If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."


Justice Rehnquist joined O'Connor's dissent. Her use of the word "experiment," referred to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:


"Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country..."


Thomas's Dissenting Opinion:
"Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not 'Commerce ... among the several States.' . . . Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that 'commerce' included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value."
"If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits."
"Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'"


Dr Matt's Bottom Line: Why Obama-Care will be Ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
In Gonzales v. Raich, what tipped the Supreme Court decision in favor of federal regulation? It was the principle of "undercutting" a broader scheme of Interstate order. In his concurring opinion, Scalia wrote:
Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. . . . This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”
If the Supreme Court had allowed individuals to grow marijuana at home for "personal medicinal purposes," this would have opened Pandora's Box: thus Interstate sales and use of marijuana would have become a nuisance for other States where marijuana growing and using is illegal — state anti-marijuana laws would have been "undercut."


One of the key differences between the State of Virginia's Lawsuit compared to Gonzales v. Raich, is that Marijuana use is illegal in most States and exercising one's liberty NOT to purchase Health Insurance is NOT illegal in all States — that is, until ObamaCare introduced its coercive Mandate. This means the threat of "undercutting" a broader network of State Laws is NOT a factor in the Virginia Law Suit. Expressing one's liberty to NOT purchase a good or service has never been illegal; in contrast, growing and using marijuana is illegal — that's a key difference in the two court case, thus the undercutting principle should not apply in the Virginia Lawsuit.


This means the freedom for individual citizens to NOT engage in commerce (to choose NOT to buy Health Insurance or any other good or service) is NOT regulate-able by the Federal Government via the Interstate Commerce Clause, because that choice is NOT an act of commerce and further does not involve Interstate coordination or Interstate "undercutting" — which was the tipping point for Gonzales v. Raich, according to Scalia.


Clearly a citizens choice to "do nothing" need not be coordinated and regulated between the several States by the Federal Government; therefore, the Health Care Freedom Act passed by the State of Virginia should be ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court; and the universal mandate forcing citizens to buy health insurance, and levying a monetary penalty if they don't, should be found Unconstitutional.


The power for Governments to regulate an individual's decision to "do nothing" (to NOT buy a good or a service) is unquestionably reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution — that is IF, as the Declaration of Independence says "by the consent of the governed," a majority of citizens want such a regulation. The people of the State of Virginia have decided they want liberty from being compelled to buy health insurance! In contrast, if the majority of Massachusetts citizens want to be insured, they have the liberty to elect representative government to establish it — and thus enjoy the freedom to be insured. That's Federalism.


The best Health Care Reform at the federal level will be Compassionate, Constitutional, and will NOT kill the Economy by driving up the National Debt. But operating from limited powers, the best federal government can do is to remove interstate restrictions and open up free market competitive among the States.


Ultimately Healthcare Reform must happen at the State level, because States have numerous and indefinite powers that federal government does not have. Because ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government, making it more of a Central Government that overreaches and diminishes the numerous and indefinite powers of the States, the Supreme Court should rule 5-4 that Obama-Care is unconstitutional.

See more of Jared Allebest / Conservative Samizdat here......  http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

A Simple Way To Destroy Obama's New Attack Ad On RomneyCare

Conservative Samizdat Samizdat (Cамиздат-Cам-"self, by oneself"; издат-"publishing house"): Translates to mean self published. Providing conservative news and opinion since 2009.

By Jared Allebest

Recently, the Obama Campaign team released a new ad titled, "The Anniversary of Romneycare" in which it attacks Mitt Romney's for supporting the individual mandate at the state level but wants to repeal the individual mandate at the national level. 

Here is the clip below:

The Romney Campaign is well known for rapidly responding to political attacks from campaign rivals can simply refute this ad by simply airing this clip on nation wide: 

The video clip isn't the first time Obama has objected to the individual mandate. Back in 2008, when Obama was running for President, he supported a health care reform proposal that didn't not include the individual mandate because he had concerns about how the individual mandate was a slippery slope that could lead the government to think that they can solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house.

All the Romney media team has to do is throw Obama's own words back at him. This would be very effective since it would show Obamaflip flopping on the individual mandate. Moreover, it would cause the voters across this country to wonder if Obama was so strongly opposed to the individual mandate in 2008, why would he include it in his own health care plan? The only conclusion that the viewers will draw from that question is that Obama must have disingenuously opposed it for political reasons rather than having any sincere objections to it.

See more of Jared Allebest on Conservative Samizdat here ...............

http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/

Rick Santorum Is Not The Ideal Candidate To Go One On One With Obama On ObamaCare

Conservative Samizdat Samizdat (Cамиздат-Cам-"self, by oneself"; издат-"publishing house"): Translates to mean self published. Providing conservative news and opinion since 2009.

By Jared Allebest

With the United States Supreme Court hearing arguments on theconstitutionality of ObamaCare, Rick Santorum used this historic moment to launch another attack on RomneyCare:

Santorum then drew some unwanted headlines this past weekend and Monday after he said that Romney is the "worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama." He claimed he was only talking about the health care issue. He later cursed at a New York Times reporter who asked about the charge.

Undeterred, Santorum pounded the issue again on the Supreme Court steps Monday afternoon: "If we run this campaign, which we will, on Obamacare and we're successful, there's no doubt Obamacare will be repealed in one form or another, and that's not going to be the case with Governor Romney because he can't make it the argument, because if he makes it the argument, the Obama machine will turn it right back on him."

Rick Santorum's claim that Mitt Romney is a bad candidate to go one on one with Obama on the issue of ObamaCare is odd given that Santorum was one of the many conservatives who have supportedRomneyCare in the past. Moreover, Rick Santorum supported anemployer mandate in which his plan would mandate that employers be required to offer their workers a chance to purchase health insurance. If Rick Santorum decides to go after Obama on ObamaCare, the President will have no trouble returning fire during the general election.

Rick Santorum's claims that Mitt Romney can't make the case for overturning ObamaCare because Obama will turn it right back on him is also bizzare. Mitt Romney has repeatedly promised that he willrepeal ObamaCare on the first day in office as President. Recently, on March 22,  Mitt released an article reaffirming his promise to repeal ObamaCare and outlining additional steps he would take to reform America's health care system. Mitt Romney has already made the argument that he will repeal ObamaCare and Obama can't attack Romney on that point without getting dragged into a debate on the Constitutionality of his health care plan which is something that Obama himself may not want to do since a large majority of Americans do not support ObamaCare.

In fact, if there was any candidate who is ideal for going against Obama on the issue of ObamaCare, its Mitt Romney:

"The central tenet of the “Anybody-But-Romney” conservative theology is this article of faith: Nominating the former Massachusetts governor will take away the Republican Party’s best 2012 issue — because “Romneycare” is so like “Obamacare.” ABR true believers lump the two plans together, with the epithet “Obamneycare.”

This conservative faith is wrong, however. To the extent that attacks on President Barack Obama’s health care reform are good politics, the candidate best able to make them is Mitt Romney.

Since he orchestrated and then signed the Massachusetts health care law, Romney is uniquely qualified to lead the GOP attacks against the federal health care reform bill.

Why? He would be the first GOP nominee in nearly 50 years with a proven track record on health care who has been praised by Democrats — including the president — as fair and compassionate. He can’t be demonized as an out-of-touch, uncompassionate, hard-right ideologue on this issue.

Americans have been telling pollsters since 1965 that they favor Democrats over Republicans when asked whom they trust on health care issues. That was when President Lyndon B. Johnson and congressional Democrats passed the historic Medicare program — over the objections of many high-profile Republican opponents, including future President Ronald Reagan.

This political landscape meant GOP presidential nominees have regularly been put on the defensive, sometimes even demonized, on health care issues. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are typical in this regard."

"...Think of the advantage that this situation gives Romney: Even if the health care law is ruled constitutional, legitimate political questions remain because it is not fully operative for two more years. Only “Romneycare” is a public-private-sector plan in full operation, praised by his opponents — like Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a top Obama ally. By embracing a role for government in addressing health care, Romney has neutralized traditional winning Democratic arguments.

The Obama campaign has one overriding aim — paint any GOP nominee as out of touch with the problems facing average Americans. “Romneycare” presents a problem for this narrative. If the former head of Bain Capital is allegedly the “same ole” GOP rich guy worshipping at the altar of social Darwinism, how does the “compassionate party” explain away using “Romneycare” as a model?"

There is one fundamental difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare that people on the left and on the right somehow fail to grasp. Its a difference that Mitt Romney has been making for many months now and its a distinction that the attorneys opposing ObamaCare in the Supreme Court explained today:

If the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate based on the theory argued by Paul Clement, the attorney representing the 26 states that filed lawsuits against Obamacare, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign could get a big boost from the ruling.

Clement told the court, just as Romney has told Republican primary voters, that states have the power to enact individual mandates wheras the federal government has no such authority.

"I do think the States could pass this mandate," Clement said today in response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "[T]he States can do it because they have a police power, and that is a fundamental difference between the States on the one hand and the limited, enumerated Federal Government on the other."

Romney has argued throughout the presidential primary that Massachusetts has the ability, under the 10th Amendment, to enact an individual mandate for health insurance.

Democrats prepping for the general election have attacked Romney for supporting the individual mandate in his state while opposing President Obama's mandate.

If the Supreme Court agrees that states can enact mandates, but rules that Obama's mandate is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty, then Romney will have a solid rebuttal.

ObamaCare will certainly be an issue during the 2012 general election since the Supreme Court won't publicly release their decision until June which is a few months before election day. Romney's defense of RomneyCare is a solidly constitutional argument and whereas Obama's defense of ObamaCare isn't. The contrast between state's rights and governmental overreach will be made very clear if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee.  As a result, Mitt Romney is the best and strongest defender of state's rights and economic liberty and is the ideal candidate to go head to head with Obama.

Check out Conservative Samizdat's blog........ http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/