Does the President think that everyone in his audience is misinformed? A strong majority? His healthcare bill passed 219 -212 in the house and 69-30 in the Senate. His statements about the judicial process are also quite concerning. Does the president believe our system of checks an balances to no longer be valid, hence resorting to vein threats to the justices of the supreme court? The Supreme Court exists to uphold constitutional law. If he believes his law to be constitutional , why is he so worried?
That being said, remember the states also have the power under the constitution to refuse any legislative enactments deemed unconstitutional.
"Article III, Section 2. U.S. courts have the power to rule legislative enactments or executive acts invalid on constitutional grounds. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any court, state or federal, high or low, has the power to refuse to enforce any statute or executive order it deems repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. "
Folks, we should all be concerned about this level of arrogance. As I blogged about last week, this is the type of behavior aimed at unraveling the fabric of our great Democracy. The President is using his power unduly to try to support his special interest, to coerce the populace to support his reelection bid. This was shown last week in his misguided remarks about Trayvon Martin looking like the son he would have had. This is another comment, however innocent he may have thought it was, that riled up the masses, further supporting a movement that has convicted Tryvon's killer before a trial. Make no mistake about it, his murder was a absolute travesty, but we must follow the due process that our forefathers risked it all to establish.
Let us stand up together, and fight for our Freedom. Write to your Congressmen and let them know how you feel about these kinds of laws. Stay informed. Politics matters, and affects us all.
You do understand that the majority reason it is being discussed in the Supreme Court is to determine the Constitutionality of the passed legislation. 26 States are opposing the law saying it is not, but first they must prove how it is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteOn a side,yet related note: EVERY developed country has some form of universal healthcare, the US does not. You are vehemently opposed to the bill yet I have seen no proposal from this blog as to a solution for those who are unable to afford healthcare or have been denied health insurance. Having walked in the shoes of one of these people for several years myself I would welcome a discussion on the healthcare/health insurance question.
Hi Chris:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment!
I understand quite well that it is the Supreme Court’s decision to decide whether a law is constitutional or not, within reason, giving the legislative branch the benefit of the doubt. See
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993)
The point of this blog post was not to debate the Healthcare law itself, but to bring light to the fact the the President has, more than once, openly questioned the judicial branch's authority to strike down law it deems to be unconstitutional, and in this case I believe it to be a political ploy aimed at guarding his re-election campaign. The comments he made were completely inappropriate, especially if he believes the law to be Constitutional. He must, as President let due process take its course, as this review is based on lawsuits the states have filed, which is within their right per the Constitution. If th
Switching a bit to the healthcare debate, I do, and have always believed that healthcare needs to be reformed to monitor reimbursements rates, but not to arbitrarily impose reimbursement caps. That would be detrimental to the system, and cause doctors to question their career choice (given that they are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and expect to make a fair income to compensate them from years of abuse, in my mind, training to be attending physicians.
I am also in favor of a safety net program that offers students out of college, free or affordable healthcare while they are out of work. I also believe this standard to apply to people that are out of work. It should not apply to people who are out of work and have not actively sought it. I am for a healthcare system that preserves a high quality of care, while providing a fall back program for when hard times arise. I would set this program up to not be a way of life. This would include a time on the program cap, as well as a requirement to prove you are actively seeking gainful employment. We are doing the citizens of this nation a disservice, in my opinion, not providing incentives to work.
I have been that person that did not have health insurance for a long period of time, and can completely understand the stress. This is no excuse, however, to accept a program that tramples on our rights as citizens, increases the government’s role outside of the bounds of the constitution, and degrades the quality of healthcare, in exchange for providing for the ~15 percent of people who don’t have healthcare . I have seen and heard from dear friends, how poor the quality of care, even in developed countries (e.g. Poland), is that follow universal healthcare policies. The quality of care suffers almost implicitly to allowing the government to run the system. This can be seen in the quality of care in the Veterans Health system. I have seen it(personally) take 6+ hours just to get a prescription. It is my opinion, that that is the quality of care you can expect under US socialized medicine.
Please see below for further thoughts and analysis of this subject:
http://theveritastribune.blogspot.com/2012/03/freedom-of-speech-religion-from-debt.html
Best regards,
theveritastribune
Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this opinion piece from CNN re: Obama and the Supreme Court. The writer believes that it was Judge Jerry Smith, not Obama who misused his power. Thoughts?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/opinion/tribe-obama-remarks/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Also - in your reply to another readers comment above you address some health care reform issues for recent graduates and those who are unemployed... do you also classify those who are employed but not offered health insurance through their current employer in this group as well? I know many people (myself included) who don't have any health care coverage offered through their employer. What is your solution for those people who are gainfully employed but still struggle with the high costs of having to pay for all of their insurance out of pocket?
Hi Catherine:
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good question. I myself was in a similar situation with a job that did not provide coverage. I was, however, fortunate enough to make extra because of it.
I understand that in an economy with more demand then there is supply for jobs it becomes more and more likely that folks might take a job that does not provide coverage. I think that the Government Safety Net program I have spoken about could apply to instances like this, only if we define very clearly what it means to be underemployed, and the person on the program would still need to show they are actively searching for a job fitting their skill set and needs.
I do not believe it is within the Governments power under the constitution to “provide” healthcare to anyone, but to help support those who are falling on hard times, while not funding a program that could be misused as a way of life.
Another proposal I might have is, instead of pouring the billions into the universal healthcare law that will, as most experts will agree, degrade quality of care, take part of that to fund incentive programs for businesses to provide coverage.
We must truly understand that once we go down this road, there is really no going back. We can see this effect with social security. It will be nearly impossible to change once enacted. This blog does not feel it proper to degrade the quality of US healthcare by allowing it to take over the management of the system, to provide for the 13 percent, regardless of what other nations do or provide.
theveritastribune