So his administration took a different path than I would have and this is somehow evidence of a deficit of constitutional scholarship. Gotcha. (hint: you should probably stick to court judgments) You just want the courts to implement by judicial fiat what you lost by the democratic process.
Nowhere in my post did I say Congress had unlimited power, but you're throwing yet another health care temper tantrum.
It was stated that Obama had the option to use the 14th to avert a budget crisis. You went further by stating that it would be illegal for him not to if it came to it. Note that word "illegal". It's a fiction on you part, like your enamored view of this issue. It was in fact as much a "different path" as attempting to walk through solid rock. It was never there to begin with.
This is peripherally about Obamacare, that cluster that had a "glitch" which requires billions and billions extra be spent for medicaid benefits. Was that fixed yet? How about the fellow that thinks his costs will come down, but if he's a younger citizen his premiums have to increase in 2014 to subsidize others who are older and at a higher risk? You know that of course because you know all about it, like you did when you preached about cost savings projected by the CBO, but ignored the caveat by them which said the assumptions were that none of the cuts (such as medicare reimbursements to physicians) were restored?
And in all of this not one thing has been done to address the larger issue of health care itself such as the future allocation and types of resources needed 10, 20, and more years ahead. Geriatric specialists are very concerned and at a seminar I attended not long ago we had a discussion period about this and contrary to what you've said this all hasn't been sorted out by previous studies. What no one said is "well the solution is UHC!" or "Obamacare!" because only a fool would do that. Health care is NOT health coverage. You fail to get that.
Notwithstanding any of that you fail to see that my concern isn't about health care in this case, but a significant change in the way the commerce clause can be applied to a great many things.
What it really comes down to is that the government isn't requiring a thing, because it probably can't do it directly. Instead it uses the principle found in Marshall's axiom "the power to tax is the power to destroy", but instead of states taxing federal bank notes, it can use circuitous reasoning it can link interstate commerce to virtually anything. Once that's done all the government has to do is invoke that power. I once said that you can be made to carry a gun if the government deemed it desirable and you never came back with a counter that would render that point invalid. The best that can be mustered as an argument is that they wouldn't. In essence the limitation is your faith that you won't be coerced to do something you don't want to do although there is no direct right under the Constitution to make you act or do something. Oh you could refuse to carry that gun (and that's an example so don't even think of stating that's the issue, it's the principles involved). Yes you could. Now how about a fee for not doing so? How much can you afford not to do what is desirable in the eyes of those in power? A thousand dollars? Ten? More?
It's a matter of the principle involved here. There are no protections now, because you aren't being forced to do anything, right? Oh it will probably be found Constitutional, but that doesn't mean it's right or not a seed change in the effective rights of the individual, but you don't care about that. You care about getting Obamacare. You care about investing imaginary powers into a Presidency that did not exist, no even more, insisted he must invoke by force of law.
This is about much more than Obamacare, but it seems that is beyond you, or perhaps since it's your heart's desire any means to and end is justifiable to you.
So be it.
?????
Facebook
Twitter