Wonder if Pelosi had read this ruling yet????????????????

[verbatime]

Supreme court 10th admendment ruling should kill obammacare

Groundbreaking US Supreme Court Decision on the Tenth and Ninth Amendment
06/18/2011 1:40

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

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.Goldwater Institute 6.17.11 Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the best and most important decisions ever on federalism. The Court unanimously held that not just states but individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision is as radical in the direction of liberty as the New Deal was radical in the direction of socialism. Click here to read the decision. In short, freedom advocates like us just got a green light from the USSC to bring more cases under the 10th Amendment. This will have huge—positive—implications for freedom so long as the current constitution of the court holds.
Here is our favorite passage: “Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.” We will put this precedent to work immediately when we file our opening brief in the Obamacare lawsuit Monday, and also in our defense of Save Our Secret Ballot against the NLRB challenge, and many more cases to come.
One other important note: Sometimes little cases make big constitutional law. This case involved a woman who was prosecuted under federal law for harassing her husband’s girlfriend—not the set of facts ordinarily creating an important precedent. Some of our cases, too, are seemingly “little” but with big principles at stake.

[hardnox604008]

[GreaTOne_65]

I don't know what you think that means, but until the Republicans win back the House, the Senate and the Presidency, the Affordable Heathcare Act is THE LAW. It can't be repealed until then. So who ever told you it could be is lying.

BTW, the with the policies the Republicans have been promoting, good luck, taking anything back, their going to be lucky to hold the House, but their going to sweat their butts off, if they do keep it.

[dagwud]

GTO, You may be right about having the health care reform repealed but would not a Supreme Court ruling stating it is unconstitutional put the kibosh on it just the same?

[GreaTOne_65]

They can't repeal the whole thing, only what they deem unconstitional. From what I've read the only part that could be, and let's emphize,"could be", the mandate calling for people to purchase insurance. If they do that, states like Michigan that require people to have auto insurance, is also unconstitutional, is it not? I'm sure they will, look how far they overreached in the Citizens United fiasco. Clarence Thomas should be tarred and feathered.

[verbatime]

The ruling had nothing to do with limiting states rights.

[ollie2655]

os it it a typical dumocrat response

[GreaTOne_65]

No, it was far worse than that. The most partisan ruling of all time, with the lamest excuse ever, for instituting it. Corporations are people too?? Bulshilt!

[dagwud]

I agree with you GTO on that ruling.   That case and the Kelo vs City of New London were in my opinion two poor judgements by the high court.

[GreaTOne_65]

Thank you, at least we can agree on something.