The fourth Monday in June is the usual announcement day for pending U.S. Supreme Court Decisions. There are three really big cases pending decisions that could have significant impact on the November election as well as on federal and state law-making for a long time to come.
One really big case concerns the Affordable Care Act, also known as national health care reform, or “Obama Care”. The main focus of this case is the constitutionality of “individual mandate” which requires everyone who does not have health insurance to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Additionally, there is concern (hope) that if the individual mandate is struck down by the court that the rest of the law may be upheld (stuck down also), depending upon your point of view.
Another really big case is the federal government’s challenge to the constitutionality of Arizona’s state immigration enforcement law. Does any state have the right to take upon itself the administration of any federal responsibility, without the consent of the federal government to do so? Or, is one immigration policy sufficient, versus, say, fifty one different immigration policies (one federal policy plus fifty different state laws addressing this subject)?
The third really big case is a challenge to a legacy Montana law that outlawed corporate spending for advertising in political campaigns. The Supreme Court previously ruled (in 2010), in the case known as Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, that a key provision of the McCain-Feingold Act, known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which barred corporate and union spending on electioneering communications, was unconstitutional. In other words, the court affirmed its prior rulings that corporations (and unions) are people, for the purposes of free speech rights. “Super PACs were born out of the Citizens United decision.
There are other cases of much less significance, or sweep in the potential impact.
How do you feel about these cases, which could re-write both history and civics textbooks?
Governments have the power to regulate economic activity which occurs in the normal course of daily life. The constitution delineates some activities which are the purview of the federal government to regulate (like immigration & naturalization), and some activities which are the domain of the states to regulate (like education). Other areas are less well-defined, like worker safety which is regulated by the federal government (OSHA), but also by some state governments (CAL OSHA) except where the federal government also regulates other aspects of the activity, such as airlines, railroads, ocean shipping, and interstate trucking. But in none of those examples does the government mandate the activity to occur, or cause it to happen. Yes, you are required to have car insurance in order to license and operate a car or motorcycle. But the government does not require you to actually buy car insurance; you can elect not to buy car insurance and not to drive, like millions of people in New York City have elected (NOT) to do. Why not ACA? The Congress and President have passed and signed ACA into law, so yes, ACA. Tomorrow the Court will tell us all whether the law or parts of the law are unconstitutional, or if they are okay, as-is.
I am 100% in favor of sealing the southern border with the US Army if needed. A fair and reasonable immigration policy begins with enforcement. The issue is the 10-12 million illegals already here, and IMHO, that is not a job to be delegated to local sheriffs. I am also in favor of exclusive government financing for all elections so as to level the playing field. Unfortunately, money = power, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thank you for letting me clarify my position. PS - try spell check.
HOWEVER patrick your persistence in attacking me personaly is bordering on Harrasment and stalking your obsession is over the top and quite frankly i am afraid that you will resort to violence which i am posting here for future reference as I am afraid you might take you attacks on me to another level.
Well, let's see what happens with the Court today, reference the Montana statute. I don't expect the Court will reverse themselves on Citizens United and prior corporate free speech case law. Presuming what I just said holds true, then you are really stuck, because neither Congress nor the President can legislate away or order and end to corporate free speech rights, as in Constitutional Rights, which would take a Constitutional Amendment to change. Let's not second guess the Court at this late hour, however.
1. States may NOT require immigrants to carry immigration registration papers. 2. States may ask to see immigration registration papers of people suspected of being in the US illegally, but this provision may face later legal challenges. 3. Police may NOT arrest people for "minor" immigration infractions, and NOT without a warrant. 4, States may NOT make it a STATE crime for undocumented workers to seek or hold a job. Basically, it will be: "Show me your papers!" "I don;t have them with me." "Where are your papers?" "I left them at my mother's house is Minnesota" "Okay then, you can go." Another version could perhaps go like this: "Show me your papers!" "We don't need no stinking papers!" "Alrighty then, we'll just have to let ICE know about this!" (After which the person's lawyer arrives, asserting the man has been granted limited amnesty by President Obama, since he--and 800,000 other people--was brought here as a child by his parents, twelve years ago.)
Refusing to limit or reverse their prior decision in Citizens United and older case law, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that corporations (and Supe PACs) have unlimited constitutional free speech rights to advertise on behalf of political candidates and causes. The Court essentially told Montana to shelve its century-old law against corporate electioneering, permanently. The release of the GREAT BIG DECISION on ACA ("Obamacare") will be delayed until Thursday. Stay tuned!
Good encapsulation of the PRO mandate arguement. Thanks for posting that. We should know if the Court sees it that way in two days time!
Very unhappy with Court's failure to revisit Citizens United. Money is king - to paraphrase Chairman Mao, "all political power grows out of a checkbook". It does, however, in my somewhat convoluted way of thinking, create an interesting counterpoint/sidebar to the 1200 +/- virulent anti union, anti teacher attacks which have been posted as comments to a recent Patch blog. If money is king and money = power, why blame the teachers, their union, or anyone else for that matter for trying to amass as much as possible? Obviously, you get what you pay for.
YOUR local school board, and YOUR state representatives freely gave it all to the teachers and their union. Problem is, nobody ever really checked to see if WE have been getting what we are paying for, or more to the point, are we paying correctly for whatever it is we have been getting? Wantagh and Seaford parents and taxpayers have no gripe about not getting the education for our children for which we have paid dearly. Any gripe should be that we have paid far too much for that education, and shall continue to do so for a long, long time to come. A sound, basic education at an insane cost. And we re-elect those people over and over again.
Interesting comments. Care to elaborate? In particular, who pays if you have no coverage and can't or won't go to a private doctor and go to ER for strep throat, the flu or cancer?
- the decision will NOT begin or end with the justices asking, "What do you think?" - once issued, like it, don't like it...it will be the law of the land, for better or for worse. - out of respect for the institution and for the Constitution, I find it best to reserve any criticism of the Court and the Justices; I am not the Supreme Court, and they are. - rather than spend the time prior to learning the decision prognosticating about it, or setting up make-believe scenarios in the event they decide this way, that way, or some other way...I said a prayer that the Justices reach the correct decision for the nation, for all of us.
The law of the land.
Neither of these two ostensibly ""conservative"" Republicans showed even a scintilla of respect for the Supreme Court or the Constitution which established the Court and set it in place as the key, final check-and-balance among the Congress, the Executive Branch, and that Constitution. They should have both just sat back, shut up, and waited for the decision, instead of running their mouths the way they did. God save the Court! May God bless America! Watershed Thursday,
The television news is featuring Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Mitch McConnel all in our faces, in your face, slamming the decision and vowing to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This sounded to me like Eyewitness News interviewing players and parents and the coach of some high school team that lost a County playoff game after what they thought was a bad call from the referee. The U.S. House of Representatives is going to have ANOTHER symbolic repeal vote on July 11th, "...to make sure that we continue to focus on what the American people want...." Let us please move on, gentlemen.
A great writer he is; but certainly does not come across as a person of violence (althought you probably deserve a beating for conjuring words that are so disgusting) Ms. De Vita would you explain what you meant by "take your attacks on me to another level" in the posting in this string? Where on earth do you dream this up Ms. Devita? You do not sound as if you are from this planet, to take what Patrick writes and turn it into your wild imaginatory declarations.
Who the hell do you think pays for Medicaid?