Two huge cases, one court

Health care, immigration cases will test states' rights and ours

  • Follow Editorials

It’s official: This U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide two of the most important cases in modern history.

The high court had earlier agreed to decide the constitutionality of the federal health care law – which will go a long way toward determining the state of our individual liberties. Now the court has agreed to decide the Arizona immigration law case – which will go a long way toward clarifying the rights of the 50 states.

The theme of the two cases, other than freedom, is as epic as any we’ve seen: power – as in unbridled power. The federal government is attempting to confer upon itself the power to order Americans to purchase a product of its choosing – health insurance – while trying to swat down states for indolently protecting their sovereignty against illegal immigration (in lieu of a wantonly and intentionally negligent federal government, it should be noted).

Do you not think, on that latter point, that after all these years of debate and public protest that the federal government knows very well that it has a porous border? Thus, can its failure to secure the border be the result of anything other than its desire to thwart the states’ and the public’s will?

Can there be a more titanic battle for the high court to settle than that? It is the most momentous power struggle of our time: The federal government vs. both the states and the people.

It’s truly unreal and unsettling that either case would have to go this far. An elementary understanding of the Constitution reveals that our founders went out of their way to spell out the federal government’s “enumerated” powers. But to make it all the more evident, they added the 10th Amendment, which says: “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.”

Think about that. In 2011-speak, it means unless we specifically give the federal government a certain power, it belongs to the states or the citizens. It expressly leaves the federal government as odd man out.

Yet, today, we have an administration and a bureaucracy that thinks they, rather than we, are in charge. They’re trying to stomp on states that are defending themselves from illegal immigration, and trying to tell us they can determine what we do with our money beyond pay taxes.

The Obama administration’s argument in the health-care law case is unprecedented, too: that even if we sit on our couch and do nothing, that, to them, is a form of interstate commerce (which the feds can regulate) because we’re not doing something they want us to do. If this law stands, what else will we not do to incur the government’s wrath?

More than half of these United States have gone to court to stop the federal health care law from setting such a dangerous precedent. And the feds have sued each state that has instituted tough laws against illegal immigration (making you wonder what bothers the administration so much about actually enforcing the law).

Question: When was the last time the federal government was this hostile toward the states that created it?

Comments (57) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 12/14/11 - 04:08 am
0
0
I believe the Federal

I believe the Federal Government needs to stay out of state's business.
The Feds have no business interfering with state laws. We as citizens need to make it known loud and clear that we will not stand for it.
Obamacare is the most ridiculous bunch of hooey that the Feds want to ram down our throats. It is illegal if you ask me. I could go on and on but I think I'll do my talking at the ballot box.
If we let the Federal Government get away with thier grab for more and more power then what's the use in even having state law.
We need to remember that the Fed Gov has no business telling any state how it should be run.
Obama thinks he is the Emperor, King, His Majesty the Grand Pobar when in fact he's a good talker and a lousy President. I'd rather have Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover or even Jimmy Carter instead of his power hungry idiotic agenda.
I voted for him because I thought he had some fresh ideas. It turned out they were just stale garbage dressed up with a fancy bow.
Fool me once shame on him. I will not be fooled twice.
If Forrest Gump was to run against him next year I'd put a Gump for president sticker on my car!

Brad Owens
4226
Points
Brad Owens 12/14/11 - 05:55 am
0
0
This is what we get for

This is what we get for electing the wrong people.

If president, Ron Paul would not have signed off on either of these, the Healthcare or taking States to court.

When elected, President Ron Paul's Attorney General would drop all of these cases.

If President, Ron Paul would respect the U.S. Constitution, obey his oath of office and protect individual citizen's rights.

President Ron Paul is what America needs right now, a true patriot and change agent.

My $0.02 worth,

Brad

curly123053
4536
Points
curly123053 12/14/11 - 07:20 am
0
0
The biggest thing here is the

The biggest thing here is the federal government lacks all respect for the U.S. Constitution, from the man in the White House to the Democrats in Congress. As far as I'm concerned Obama has done enough to earn an impeachment for violating constitutional issues on a regular basis. With that being said I wonder how much better off we would be if Biden became president after O got impeached?

southernguy08
499
Points
southernguy08 12/14/11 - 07:30 am
0
0
Good point, Brad.
Unpublished

Good point, Brad. Unfortunately, we know RP couldn't get arrested. We have to deal with political reality here. The good news is enough people have finally awakened to Obama's "change," and want him out of office. As for states' rights, I think the image of Mexico's president addressing the US Congress, condemning Arizona's law on illegals, and getting round after round of applause for it, speaks volumes as to what congress thinks of states' rights. Makes me sick! WAKE UP AMERICA, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE! ITS TIME TO VOTE OBAMA AND THE REST OF THESE TRAITORS OUT OF OFFICE!

augusta citizen
9060
Points
augusta citizen 12/14/11 - 07:31 am
0
0
It is a big power struggle.

It is a big power struggle. Most of our elected officials in Washington know that they are over stepping the powers given to them but they don't care. They want total control and they are going after it in a huge way. Our federal government has become so out of control, that it is suffocating it's citizens, the very people it is supposed to serve. Like shrimpforbreakfast, I would vote for Forrest Gump or anyone else over Obama. Gladly, I didn't vote for Obama and can only hope that many who did have now come to the same conclusion that shrimpforbreakfast has and will say no more come election day.

onlysane1left
216
Points
onlysane1left 12/14/11 - 07:34 am
0
0
Such a shame the ACES takes

Such a shame the ACES takes this stand instead of looking at a bigger picture. Health Care needs to be reformed. My insurance company and my doctor, because my choices are limited, and both are getting richer off my back and the backs off other hard working Americans, yet, people can go into an emergency room get free healthcare and walk out, leaving me to pay that bill through higher costs. No one wants to protect us from that, if the ACES talks you all into believing nothing is wrong with our current state of health insurance. Can life, liberty and, the pursuit of happiness be obtained if we can not afford to get sick?

On to the second issue, illegal immigration is a federal problem, if the states choose to enact laws to stop illegal immigration, is fine by me. The problem no one looks at is the call to ICE when you've locked up indivduals that need to be deported. If you want to take feds out of the loop, then, do it on your own, deport them back on your dime, as you feed, clothe, and care for them in your state prison system, and we'll see how long states want to foot that expensive bill.

Another $0.02 worth.......

DuhJudge
206
Points
DuhJudge 12/14/11 - 08:11 am
0
0
State's rights is a

State's rights is a misunderstood argument by most people because they never speak of state allegiance. From the American Revolution until the Civil War, citizens were state centric. Now, to realize that law varies from state to state is surprising to many people. This is supposed to still be a collection of independent states united by a single agreement. At the rate that state's rights are disappearing, why bother having states?

shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 12/14/11 - 08:16 am
0
0
I'm with you Brad! Ron Paul

I'm with you Brad! Ron Paul would make the best President. I just wish more people would realize that.

I agree with Augusta Citizen too!

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 12/14/11 - 09:29 am
0
0
When was the last time we

When was the last time we heard so muh about states' rights. Hmm, lets's see:
"The unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted, and force-induced intrusion upon the campus of the University of Alabama today of the might of the central government offers frightful example of the oppression of the rights, privileges and sovereignty of this state by officers of the federal government." George Wallace
National States' Rights Party-Founder and chairman, J B Stoner
Yeah, that's around the time period.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 12/14/11 - 09:58 am
0
0
Your attempt to equate the

Your attempt to equate the issue of states rights as it pertains to the two cases now with George Wallace's stance on segregation during the civil rights era is a very weak attempt at trolling, Techfan.

If the mandatory insurance is upheld, what will be the next thing that the government forces us to buy or do? As to the Arizona ILLEGAL immigration bill, if the Feds were doing their job properly there would be no need for Arizona's law. The Feds need to either step up and do their job, or disband the entire border patrol and allow the states to take care of it.

madgerman
236
Points
madgerman 12/14/11 - 10:14 am
0
0
Wow. Does the federal
Unpublished

Wow. Does the federal government have the right to step in and tell states what laws they need to enact? For instance, is there a law that says employers will penalized in the state of Geoprgia if they hire illegals? It would appear that if we want to stop flooding in the house, we need to cut off the source of the flood. Now, just what laws are there in our little southern state that holds employers responsible for hiring iollegals. As to the Feds requiring everyone have healthcare, I have lived in countries that have single payer healthcare and am amazed at the healthiness of the populations. BTW who wrote this letter? Is the writer ACES or someone in the healthcare lobby trying to keep mis-informing the public for capitol gain?

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/14/11 - 10:38 am
0
0
Can you hear it? It's the

Can you hear it? It's the sound of obamacare dying a rapid death once the Supreme Court gets ahold of it. Looks like Kagan was a pretty stupid choice for the job. They did not think through the consequences of her having to recuse herself.

Folks, the election in November 2012 is it. Choose carefully and we can begin restoring our republic (after almost a century of federal political abuse & control).

If you vote to re-elect the worst president in the history of the USA - obama (aka Mr. Marxism, Mr. Dictator, The Messiah, The Chosen One, Mr. Wealth Envy, Mr. Vacation, Mr. Golf) - and America will be ruined forever.

The choice is yours.

allhans
23502
Points
allhans 12/14/11 - 10:39 am
0
0
Strange doings. In my 55

Strange doings. In my 55 years, marriage, 3 children, I have never had a problem with my private insurance.

This is the United States! We don't need the government acting as our parents. Obama has stood in our way 3 years too long now, enough!

effete elitist liberal
3112
Points
effete elitist liberal 12/14/11 - 10:55 am
0
0
ACES (aka Mike Ryan) has

ACES (aka Mike Ryan) has published here one of the most demagogic, deceitful, and blatantly untrue editorials I have read in a long time. The piece, using the language of Tea Party radicals, claims that health care reform, especially the individual mandate, and immigration, are issues of "the federal government" vs. "the states" and "the people." ACES wants readers to believe that the health insurance and immigration are 10th Amendment issues, issues not falling under the "enumerated powers" granted to the federal government under the Constitution. ACES, of course, is completely wrong here, and they know it. Health insurance is clearly an example of interstate commerce, and the Constitution patently gives the federal government exclusive power in setting immigration policy. But ACES' most egregious lie here is that there is an entity it calls "the federal government" which in some way thwarts the "will of the people." But what ACES calls the federal government is, under our system of government, just another name for "we the people." Does ACES really not know that? The health care reform bill with the individual mandate was NOT established by government decree, but voted on and passed by Congress, by the elected representatives of "we the people." Current immigration policy was NOT fiated by some unaccountable dictator, but again voted on and passed by Congress, "we the people." Both Congressional policies were supported by the President, voted into office by "we the people." When ACES and the Tea Party claim a policy is the result of some draconian act by "the federal government," what they really mean is that policies passed into law by a majority of the elected representatives of "we the people" are policies they don't agree with. The solution? Remember, conservatives have long criticized liberals for running to the courts to overturn policies established by elected legislatures instead of working to elect presidents and legislative representatives who support their policy preferences. ACES should stop demagoguing about some big, bad, mythic "federal government" and look for ways to send folks to Congress who will vote for policies they like.

harley_52
22905
Points
harley_52 12/14/11 - 10:58 am
0
0
Chillen, Kagan has recused

Chillen, Kagan has recused herself in the Arizona Immigration case, not the Obamacare case unless I've missed something.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/14/11 - 11:23 am
0
0
@ my two cents True, the

@ my two cents True, the President is not a King (though some think they are). And it is also true that "just because he wants things a certain way does not mean he will be able to make them so"

To that I say, we are far better off with someone who is drastically trying to fix things than we are with a RINO, a Progressive Republican, or God help us, obama for another term.

A leader like Paul (who is a strict Constitutionalist and minimal govt supporter) will put lots of pressure on Congress to fix things. Will he get everything he wants done? No way. But the point it, HE WILL TRY. Instead of "meeting in the middle" like Progressive Republican Bush.

Just look at obama and the hideous progress he's made. A President can get a lot done. We need someone like Paul.

Drastic times call for drastic measures. And we are in the middle of drastic times my friends. The big govt, socialist model is failing rapidly worldwide. Including here.

Jon Lester
2285
Points
Jon Lester 12/14/11 - 11:25 am
0
0
As for federal immigration

As for federal immigration enforcement, you need to take a look at the numbers over the last few years; deportations and arrests are up under this Administration, and by stating otherwise with terms like "negligent," you're wither failing as journalists or purposefully lying to your readers.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/14/11 - 11:25 am
0
0
@ harley, you are right, but

@ harley, you are right, but soon it will be the big case. She will be breaking all the rules if she does not.

Well, on second thought, when have rules meant anything to the obama administration?

harley_52
22905
Points
harley_52 12/14/11 - 11:26 am
0
0
Ron Paul is not going to be

Ron Paul is not going to be the next President. He won't be the Republican nominee and he won't run as a third party candidate either. He has some appeal to some people, but he's not a serious candidate.

He's a ranter. He's an idealogue. When asked questions he doesn't answer, but instead rants his views on how badly things are screwed up. I like the guy, he seems like a nice man, and I wish we'd take his advice on many domestic issues, but I don't think he has any clue about foreign policy in general and islamic terrorism in particular.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/14/11 - 11:29 am
0
0
harley, sadly, you are

harley, sadly, you are probably right. We'll be left with some Progressive RINO instead of who we really need to lead this nation - someone like Paul, Bachmann or Santorum.

Someone who will lead us down the same path as obama, only slower.

Oh well, the beat of the two party system marches on..........

itsanotherday
0
Points
itsanotherday 12/14/11 - 11:29 am
0
0
Harley, some people have a
Unpublished

Harley, some people have a problem understanding that. Ross Perot was chock full of information he preached to the converted on, but short on actual solutions.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/14/11 - 11:33 am
0
0
The Establishment Democrat

The Establishment Democrat and Republican Machines (75% the same) are impossible to stop.

Now don't get me wrong, in the end, I'll vote Republican because they will get us to the same place slower and it will hurt less, but the end result IS THE SAME.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/14/11 - 11:34 am
0
0
The precedent under which the

The precedent under which the insurance mandate can be upheld is a case Conservatives agreed with at the time, Gonzales v. Raich; be careful what SCOTUS decisions you laud and which you lament.

Therefore, send not to know
For whom the precedence tolls,
It tolls for thee.

“Health-Care Law Has Precedent, Retired Justice Stevens Says”

“Stevens wrote the court’s opinion in the 2005 case, a 6-3 ruling that let the federal government ban marijuana even when the drug doesn’t cross state lines and is used only for medicinal purposes. As with health care, that case centered on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/health-care-law-has-precedent-r...

itsanotherday
0
Points
itsanotherday 12/14/11 - 11:47 am
0
0
Onlysane1, I (and a lot of
Unpublished

Onlysane1, I (and a lot of other people) agree that health care needs some reforming, it is not working as well as it should or could. However, as written, this is just a backdoor nationalizing of healthcare, which no "sane", freedom loving American should want.
Healthcare should be reformed in stages; first, addressing the niche of people who are not covered by private(can't afford) or public programs(make too much), but desire to be. We have infrastructure in place (Medicare) that could fold those people in and manage it.

That one action would resolve 95% of current concerns over the uninsured.

augusta citizen
9060
Points
augusta citizen 12/14/11 - 11:51 am
0
0
Harley and Chillen, I don't

Harley and Chillen, I don't think Ron Paul will get the nomination either. I don't think he has the broad appeal needed and I think many voters don't understand him or what he stands for. I will also vote for whomever gets the nomination and hope for the best. I hope mostly for an end to the current administration. I think Ron Paul could serve a future administration in a very good way but who knows if he'll be given a chance.

itsanotherday
0
Points
itsanotherday 12/14/11 - 11:55 am
0
0
No Jon Lester, they ARE
Unpublished

No Jon Lester, they ARE failing, just as every administration has for 40 years or more. There has never been a serious effort at curtailing illegal immigration in my lifetime.

harley_52
22905
Points
harley_52 12/14/11 - 12:22 pm
0
0
bjphysics posted "Health-Care

bjphysics posted "Health-Care Law Has Precedent, Retired Justice Stevens Says”

Having read the article you linked, I think either Justice Stevens has a point (which I fail to see) or he has demonstrated the wisdom of his decision to retire when he did.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/14/11 - 12:26 pm
0
0
My two cents says. "The

My two cents says.

"The original authors were all rich, white, mostly slave-owning men." And wealth envy, race envy (or race guilt) and slavery rears its ugly head.

The Founding Fathers were geniuses. They just didn't close up enough loopholes to keep the idiots from ruining our county.

Oh, nice cut and past though My Two Cents. Real Original thought.

My Two Cents pulled material from an article entitled "Constitutionalism is STUPID!" Enough Said.

http://lucien0maverick.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/constitutionalism-is-stu...

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/14/11 - 12:29 pm
0
0
My Two Cents is at it again.

My Two Cents is at it again. His/Her 10:07 post can be found here. In a Baton Rouge Letter to the Editor entitled Libertarianism doesn't work. Dated Sept 27, 2011.

Copied word for word and posted here as original thought.

http://www.lsureveille.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-libertarianism-d...

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/14/11 - 12:32 pm
0
0
Here is My Two Cents 9:55

Here is My Two Cents 9:55 post. It was put online 10 months ago by someone else.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110223153403AAKD68f

Back to Top

Top headlines

Teacher group backs Carter for governor

ATLANTA - One of the largest teachers' groups in Georgia has announced its support for Democrat Jason Carter, as he challenges Republican Gov. Nathan Deal in the fall.
Search Augusta jobs