• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Obamacare Comes before the Supreme Court

    Rare is the occasion when the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather to hear three days of arguments, and rarer still is when it is for a case like Obamacare — one that cuts to the core of the Constitution and whose outcome could fundamentally alter the role of the federal government and its power over the people. But today the Court will do just that when it open its doors and begins weighing the arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s seminal health care law.

    Were the American people to vote on the issue, they would fall decidedly against Obamacare, as recent polls have shown. But for the Court, the decision is not as cut and dried as an up or down vote, but one that involves the interplay of a series of issues raised by those who are challenging Obamacare — more than half the States of the Union and a collection of interested organizations and private parties — and those brought by the Obama Administration, which is defending the law. And they come to the Supreme Court after conflicting appellate court rulings which have left undecided the question of whether Obamacare is permissible under the Constitution.

    The central issue before the Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to impose the individual mandate on the American people, forcing them to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. If the Court holds that Congress was outside the bounds of its authority, it can strike down the individual mandate, leaving the justices to then decide whether all or part of Obamacare should fall along with it.

    If the Court upholds the mandate, America will be in the same position it finds itself today — facing a law that vests untold power and resources in the hands of the federal government, that transfers health care decision making from individuals to unelected bureaucrats, and that increases costs while decreasing access. In short, America’s health care crisis will get worse, not better, and future generations will be left paying the tab. What’s more, if the Court allows the individual mandate to stand, it will unhook Congress from its Constitutional leash, empowering it to regulate commerce and individual behavior in new ways never before imaginable.

    There are other issues, too, besides the individual mandate. Even before the Court reaches that subject, it must broach the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act, a 145-year-old federal tax law which could bar the Court from even hearing a challenge to the individual mandate. Under that law, one cannot sue over a tax until they have paid it. If the penalty for violating Obamacare’s individual mandate is considered a tax under that law, then the challenge could not be brought at this time since the penalty has not yet taken effect. Obamacare’s challengers and even the Obama Administration agree that the Anti-Injunction Act shouldn’t prevent the Court from hearing the case, but the issue will still be heard, and some think that the Court could rely on the Act as a way of avoiding having to answer the question of whether the mandate is constitutional.

    If the Court finds the Anti-Injunction Act doesn’t apply, it will move on to the individual mandate. Its decision on that issue brings with it a whole other set of problems — namely, if the Court finds that the mandate is unconstitutional, it must next decide the issue of severability — whether Obamacare will operate as Congress intended if it is stripped of the mandate, or whether all or parts of the law must be struck down with the mandate. If the Court finds that the mandate is severable, the Court can strike it down and leave it up to Congress to clean up what’s left, or, as the Obama administration has recommended, it can strike down the mandate and related provisions of the law that depend on it. Finally, if the justices find that the mandate is not severable, then it will throw out all of Obamacare, and it will again be up to Congress to enact real market-based health care reforms that bring down costs while increasing access to care.

    There is another issue, too, tied to Obamacare, and that has to do with Congress’s decision to impose new requirements on states forcing them to expand the Medicaid program and abide by the federal government’s conditions, leaving them to shoulder much of the costs while operating Medicaid according to Washington’s whims. If the states don’t comply, they could lose all Medicaid funding, putting them in an untenable position in which both their autonomy and their sovereignty collapse under Obamacare’s weight. It is up to the Court to decide whether Congress overstepped its bounds.

    America waits for the Supreme Court to weigh the facts and the law, to consider the precedents and the policy, and to issue a decision that will have implications far into the future. Will Congress be limited by the Constitution, or will its authority expand beyond the limits that the Founders intended? Will Americans’ liberties stand? Will Obamacare fall? No matter the outcome of the Court’s ruling in June, Congress can and should act now to repeal Obamacare and rid the land of this intolerable act.

    Do you stand against Obamacare? Join us as we voice our defense of liberty by signing our Repeal Obamacare petition on Facebook today.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    57 Responses to Morning Bell: Obamacare Comes before the Supreme Court

    1. Anonymous says:

      Check out the overwhelming victory of Conservatives in the Queensland, Australia elections over the weekend.

    2. Frank says:

      By all reasonable facts, Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from this case being overtly biased in favor of ObamaCare in the past. But she won't and nobody in authority has the guts to force her to recuse herself or be impeached. The Constitution continues to be trampled on by the leaders in Washington. America continues to decline (we are basically in free-fall & won't hit bottom until the US Dollar collapses and there is a global financial crises caused by loss of value to anyone left stuck holding worthless US Dollars). Looks to me like the once great USA will end up as a broke, corrupt banana republic. God is not mocked, this is the normal end result for a nation that turns their back on the God of the Bible & the Biblical Principles it was once founded upon. Now, anything goes. Right is called wrong, wrong is called right and nobody knows what to do.

    3. Dr. Henry Sinopoli says:

      I realize this comment will never see the light of day because Heritage only publishes supportive comments…but…Obama's health care mandate will never fully go away. Why? Because the life-long politicians – Heritage's favorite Republican lifers and the Socialist Democrats – have discovered another way to tax, control and maintain their status in our country.

      Face it…Heritage is fully complicit in maintaining the status quo and really does not want to challenge the lifers in politics…

      • dodger says:

        "…this comment will never see the light of day because Heritage only publishes supportive comments…"
        You were WRONG! Admit it and apologize! (I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it).

      • mitch says:

        Henry, I have found that it is usually liberal blogs and cites that delete opposing views…a true conservative looks for a means to discourse in order to educate…

      • Bobbie says:

        yeah, really doctor? How could you be so ignorant? does it show in your work? If heritage were complicit in maintaining the connived status quo, they'd be on the illusionary obamacare side. We challenge the lifer politicians, doctor. You, me, us, people! Heritage and the like are kind enough to give us the opportunity.

    4. DMJ says:

      Obamacare is not Constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give Congress or the President the power to regulate health care or health insurance. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate INTERstate commerce (between states). Health insurance and health care are INTRAstate, therefore outside of the Federal Government's jurisdiction.
      Any Justices that don't declare Obamacare unconstitutional should be impeached for not upholding the Constitution!

      • Pragmatic says:

        of course the Constitution doesn't give the President the right to regulate health insurance. But that was because the modern equivalent of health insurance wasn't invented until the 1900's. Not because the founders didn't want Congress or the President to have anything to do with it. In fact, healthcare probably never crossed their mind when writing the constitution.

        Also, suggesting that the justices be impeached for not making the decision you want is showing some pretty serious disrespect to the Constitution.

        • Bobbie says:

          of course it was the founders that put the words in place with the peoples' freedom and unconstitutional government written in the people's constitution, of the people, for the people and by the people with respect to self reliance/freedom. the founders thought of most everything, including the abusive, evil ideologies of men and men in power. Although insurance didn't exist, personal health care and doctors always did, where personal liberties/responsibilities is without constitutional need of the federal government. not to say socialized medicine wasn't tried and failed.

          so, NO! it isn't because of the "modern equivalent of health insurance." If this were modern times in the 21st century, self reliance would be expected as the only guarantee with little to know government involvement. Not government in control at our expense over what we should be in control of ourselves and with our doctors of choice! When justices violate the American peoples constitution or disregard it's true interpretation, or only regard the peoples constitution with spin, impeachment inherently respects the constitution and is appropriately American!

          • Pragmatic says:

            "Not government in control at our expense over what we should be in control of ourselves and with our doctors of choice! "

            What does this mean? The Affordable Care Act is going to tell you what doctor you have to go see. It is still going to be dependent on the quality of your insurance plan. There are a lot of people under the current system who can't see their doctor of choice because of lack of choice (either by out of network, the need for a primary care physician's referral, etc).

            • Pragmatic says:

              Sorry. This is supposed to say, "The ACA is NOT going to tell you …"

              Apologies for not proofing.

            • Bobbie says:

              lots of people under the current system can't see their doctor of choice because of the government involved/CONNECTION/abuse! Try to use your mind to take in more than what you want to believe. Go beyond the words you hear from government goons posing as American leaders. Government or any entity with government TIES is not the answer and does not promote freedom but rather REMOVES IT!

            • Susanna says:

              Alot of people cannot go to a doctor because of insurance companies and their profits

      • Mark Simmons says:

        Pragmatic, you don't know what you are talking about.

        You've already acknowledged that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to do what they are doing. Thus you have acknowledged that this Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution does have a mechanism to deal with things not foreseen. It's called a Constitutional amendment. No such amendment has been offered; much less approved. So the Act remains unconstitutional.

      • John says:

        It's not about regulating healthcare or insurance. It's about regulating commerce.

      • Eliyahu777 says:

        Your explanation of the intrastate/interstate distinction is not reflective of the historical or legal understanding of those concepts. The qualify as interstate, the alleged activity must merely have a substantial effect on interstate commerce at large, regardless of whether that effect is direct or indirect. On this basis, an activity fully contained within a state's borders can still be interstate if it has an indirect effect commerce.

        I personally disagree with the mandate, however to dismiss it on the basis of whether the activity is interstate is a weak argument. I strongly suspect that the opinion that the court delivers will instead focus on the necessary and proper clause. How they go about doing that will be interesting for the fact that court has never held a particularly strict standard for whether a congressional act conforms to this provision. In that regard, this will reshape our understanding of constitutional law.

    5. Ron says:

      Could someone please address the issue of States Rights in this context. E.g. how does what Massachusetts did relate to the role of the Federal government in imposing health care laws. Could the Court therefore rule that individual States have prerogatives which cannot be infringed upon by the Federal Government?

      • dodger says:

        The Constitution already does that but We, the People, have allowed the feds to exceed their authority while we were busy living our lives and not paying enough attention.

    6. Johncdavidson says:

      This will be the point of no return from the liberals push for socialism. Call it progressive, but in reality, their bible is written by Karl Marx and their tactics written by Alinsky.

    7. Why does it say the page to sign the petition to repeal 0bamacare is bot available? Yesterday and again today!

    8. Geoff says:

      Yes, I pray the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate "not severable", thus effectively cutting the head off of Obamacare!!

      This monstrosity is now projected, by the OMB, to cost twice what was projected just two years ago, which is now 1.8T – as in Trillion! The reason? Obama didn't want the general public to see the real price tag, that's why they didn't have any benefits kick in for 4 years. He surmised that a figure below a trillion would be more palatable to the public. But, since the OMB projects costs 10 years out, they now include 2 less years of non-benefits, (2 years ago OMB projected the cost on 6 yrs of benefits and 4 years with no benefits – now it's being figured on 8 years of benefits and 2 yrs with no benefits). Imagine what the OMB will project in 2 more years when there are no more "no-benefit" years!!!

      And, I would sign your petition, but it requires a facebook account, which I refuse to create.

    9. Basia says:

      If the governement can force us to buy health insurance and be fined or even jailed, then it is indeed a slippery slope. Then Congress can force us to buy ANYTHING. Let's see, an electric car that burns itself up (Chevy Volt), a windmill in our back yard, a smaller home, broccoli on our plates, imagine the endless possibilities! Welcome to tyranny.

    10. toledofan says:

      This should be a 9 -0 no brainer, based on the individual mandate alone, but, consdidering the ideology of Ginsberg, Soytomayor, Kagan and Breyer, it's pretty clear this one will either pass of fail 5-4. The Democrats that supported this bill and made the backroom deals to get it pased should be sent to Devils Island to finish out the rest of their lives. This is one big shake down by the Federal Government, that if it's allowed to stand, will open Pandora's Box and create Constitutional problems like we've never seen before.

    11. Mary......WI says:

      I continue to pray that Obama care is deemed unconstitutional because if it is found to be constitutional the death rate in this country will increase for lack of medical care not to mention the USA as we have always known, a free country and a free people, will be lost…forever. Obama and the democrat party are the blame for the demise of this country….they are slowly taking over every aspect of our lives. Remember that when you cast your vote in November. Dictatorship or Freedom?

    12. Jim Buzzell says:

      And what happens if SCOTUS rules against any one of the issues, and the Obama administration chooses to ignor the rutling of the court? They will just view the decision as just that a decision for which they are not obligated to follow.

    13. Gary Henderson says:

      One of our core problems is reflected in the underlying assumption of this article, that that Court has the authority to "fundamentally alter the role of the federal government and its power over the people", and to determine whether "Congress (will) be limited by the Constitution, or (have) its authority expand beyond the limits that the Founders intended." As George Washington pointed out, “The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.” The Court does not have that power, unless we are foolish enough to pretend that it does. If the Constitution is no longer valid, then we no longer even HAVE a federal government, and the justices are out of a job; it is that document that CREATED the federal government.

    14. ThomNJ says:

      Personally, I fail to see how anyone could argue that the law is Constitutional. There is absolutely no way one can read the commerce clause as applicable to this mandate. In reality, any of the courts that have heard this argument should have found against the law. It ought to take about 30 seconds to decide.

      I also find it wrong that one could consider the Anti-Injunction Act for this case, because it is not like nothing will happen until someone pays a penalty, is "harmed", and then challenges the law. This law has lots of pre-conditions and effects prior to the "harm" phase where someone could face a penalty for not buying insurance. Plus, how many of us do purchase insurance but don't believe that it should be mandated? Are we supposed to drop our insurance just so we can be the sacrificial lamb and go to court? No, we should be allowed to fight this BEFORE it does the harm. It is not rocket science.

    15. Carol says:

      You have to pass the bill before you will know what is in it. Fast forward and the American People are being treated like DOLTS! The ever so SUPREME COURT is now saying Obama Care has to go into law before we can determine if a law is being broken. This is like locking the barn after the horse has run away. TWICE: The American people are going to be treated as if the majority of us do not know what we do not want. WE ARE BEING GOVERNED AGAINST!

    16. Palrak says:

      1) With the absence of a severability clause, it should be struck down in its entirety.
      2) Written into the law is a 3.8% tax on the sale of real estate, beginning January 2013. Most folks don't know this.
      3) Elena Kagan must recuse herself!

      • Pragmatic says:

        While it is probably true that Elena Kagan should recuse herself, so should Clarence Thomas. But since their votes are going to cancel each other out, it's not that big of a deal.

        • Bobbie says:

          Clarence Thomas isn't a threat to personal freedom! Kagan is true to socialism and a traitor to the good of the people of this country! She's a conflict of interest. getting rid of her is proper, giving great benefit to this country, personal freedom and dignity.

    17. ThomNJ says:

      Additionally, if this law is allowed to to through and become a part of our lives, just wait until the government decides that you eat the wrong food or smoke or don't get enough exercise or do dangerous rock climbing or something they don't like and punish you for doing so – because you just cost too much to insure. You will have to get with the program – theirs, and only theirs. Some faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrat will be telling you and yours what to do under the excuse that it is for your health and well-being….and to save government costs.

      Pelosi's stupid "it's liberating" comment is absurd. If one wanted to be an artist or musician or "whatever" before this, one could take the risk of no health insurance and just depend upon pay as you go or emergency room availability – not so with obamacare. You will be unable to pursue your dream for "whatever", because you will need to get a different job and pay for your mandated health insurance. The heck with your dream.

    18. Robert Brunton says:


    19. Steve Ewing says:

      Is it true? As said in the New Yorker, that the Heritage Foundation first proposed the idea of the health insurance MANDATE in 1989?

    20. Wayne Peterkin says:

      An extremely well written and honest article.

    21. Bob Edwards says:

      What are the differences between Obama-care and the Heritage Foundation healthcare plan advanced in the 1980's that was the basis for Romney-care?

    22. Jeff Dover says:

      You mentioned in your fundraising promo to me that many of the "conservatives" elected in 2010 are already going "native" in DC.

      This is not because of a lack of public involvement. It is because the Republican Party is run by "natives" or "the Establishment" or "RINOs" — pick the term you like the best. They are the same thing.

      What we need is a new party where conservatives are in charge, not these hacks, beholden to the status quo and enamored of their personal power and social position among Washington's so-called "elites". At the end of the day, they are only people, like you and me. If they are "elite", it is because in their hubris they believe what, in their envy and infatuation, others write of those "elites'.

      Let's bypass them entirely and do what we know needs to be done. If they want to part of it, they'll follow. However, as it is, they represent a huge failure to lead.

      • AmayaSasaki says:

        A new party? Maybe something like the Libertarian party that says government should be involved as little as possible in our lives? That it's not the government's job to regulate what we eat, who we marry, etc, etc?

    23. Barbara Parrock says:

      Jus praying they can repeal Obamacare and that someone can come up with a better plan.

    24. Jeff Dover says:

      You mentioned in your fundraising promo to me that many of the "conservatives" elected in 2010 are already going "native" in DC.

      This is not because of a lack of public involvement. It is because the Republican Party is run by "natives" or "the Establishment" or "RINOs" — pick the term you like the best. They are the same thing. The Freshmen have to do what they’re told to do or they don’t get funding from the Party for their re-elections next time around, and in the House of Representatives, that’s every couple of years. As it is, here in AZ, the Establishment is running Dan Quail’s RINO son against freshman conservative congressman Dave Schweikert. The RINO’s want their power to block effective conservative legislation every bit as much as the Democrats want theirs to further Leftist legislative goals. After so much experience of this, it can’t be an accident. It has to be a plan.

      What we need is a new party where conservatives are in charge, not these hacks, beholden to the status quo and enamored of their personal power and social position among Washington's so-called "elites". At the end of the day, they are only people, like you and me. If they are "elite", it is because in their hubris they believe what, in their envy and infatuation, others write of those "elites'.

      Let's bypass them entirely and do what we know needs to be done. If they want to part of it, they'll follow. However, as it is, they represent a huge failure to lead.

    25. KC-NM says:

      Repeal Obamacare! The concern American's should have are the two appointees by Pres. Obama – very liberal individuals! If the Supream Court allows this law to stand, then we as Americans have opened the door for greater control by the government. We cannot let this happen. Per the Constitition, the government is there to protect its citizens, not enforce what its people are to do and buy. Pelosi and Reid were and are still wrong!

    26. Martha Moe says:

      We know that the Court is composed of 4 liberals, four conservatives and one who could go eaither way. This decision could affect our future drastically. Prayers are needed.

      • Martha Moe says:

        We know that the court is composed of four liberals and four conservatives and one who is neither. This decision will affect our future drastically. Prayers are needed.

    27. boberic says:

      The problem with the mandate is not what the obams administration Will do ( give them the benefit of the doubt and say that obama wants whats best for the people and that he honestly thinks that the mandate is best for the nation). The real problem is what another administration CAN and I repeat can do as a result of this new power. This power is all to easily abused. It gives congress ultimate power over the people.Here is one senario, that even if unlikely is possible under this law. Everyone must use public transportation when entering any city. Private cars will be prohibited. After all evertone benefits from trhis form of travel, and the roads are public. There is less polution and the fine is $1,000. Use your imagination any senarion Liberal or Conservative is possible no matter how absurd

    28. Carol from Chicago says:

      Should the Supreme Court decide that Obama Care is Constitutional and that everyone can be required to buy so-called "health care insurance" it would be critical that Republican candidates make it clear that such a decision does not mean, in any way whatsoever, that the Supreme Court had ruled that the plan is good or that it will work. It just means the plan is allowed, in their opinion, within the constraints of the commerce clause (there may, in fact, be some other aspect of it that is unconstitutional). The real problem with the President's plan is that it has nothing to do with health care insurance. Insurance determines premiums based on actuarial data. This is possible for major medical events but not for routine health care which is managed very differently by individuals. For example some people wake up with a back ache, do some exercises, take an ibuprofen, and drag themselves off to work (and feel fine by mid day). Others call their doctor, demand an MRI, and request a prescription for an expensive pain pill; whereas just about everyone goes to the hospital after a severe injury or for cancer. Governor Romney's original health care plan for Mass. required only that everyone in the state with income above three times the poverty level purchase Major Medical insurance. The Liberal legislature refused to pass his bill unless a whole litany of routine health care procedures were included – voila – Obama Care. This has been the major problem for all Americans without employer coverage for decades. First the federal government in 1973 required all employers providing health care insurance to provide the option for an all inclusive managed care plan which was soon subsidized so that it was less expensive to the employer than traditional insurance. Then many states required that these multiple services be required in insurance policies for those without employer coverage. Just like most of the wonderful rules that Liberals thrust on "the folks" this did not help those individuals at all. It just made health care insurance unaffordable leaving those who could easily afford their routine health care now without any chance of being covered for major medical events that virtually no one could afford. They also are not allowed the same tax deduction that, due to prior government regulation, was only allowed to employers. Add tax free, minimally regulated health savings accounts that could accumulate without any penalty and be carried over into Medicare, and many further problems would be resolved. Although recently (since President Bush) some states allow something similar to this, government regulations in many states do not allow such accounts. The so called "Affordable Care Act" whether constitutional under the commerce clause or not, is simply a deliberate effort to force most Americans into some type of government controlled care.

    29. bossross says:

      There is no better time to pray for this nation.
      Are we going to stand up to loosing our Sovereign "Inalienable Rights" or allow "Man" to dictate future law, thus serfdom??

    30. Ron W. Smith says:

      Health care costs, long totally in the free market, have skyrocketed during recent decades. Not only do the costs threaten the financial security of every American, now too large a proportion of GDP is tied up in those costs. Bill and Hillary Clinton tried, in the mid-1990's, to remedy the many problems in the health care system at the time, but their boggy attempt at reform, dubbed "Hillarycare" by some on the political Right, was roundly defeated. Now it's "Obamacare" the Right is after having earlier brought down any hope for Single Payer or Public Option as solutions to the continuing problems of cost, portability, exclusions, and the uninsured in our still free market health care system.
      All the while, the Right has offered no workable or adequate solutions to America's dysfunctional health care system, even when the presidency and numbers in Congress have been favorable for Republicans to move. When Democrats haven't been working for reform, Republicans haven't worked either.
      If "Obamacare" fails at the nation's Supreme Court, what will be left to stop the endlessly spiraling costs of health care coverage in this country, to assure portability of coverage in the event off change or loss of job, to insure the tens of millions currently uninsured and thus eliminate hidden costs to the insured, to stop the often whimsical exclusions from coverage due to medical conditions common in private insurance? What will be done to change dysfunction in the health care system and to change the present huge proportion of GDP taken up by health care and reduce the percentage to sustainability? If you think Republicans have something wonderful up their collective sleeve, I urge you to read the several plans proposed on the Right, including Heritage's own. There's as little comfort in them as there is in what Republicans have offered America's labor force as replacement to unionism's gains in wages, benefits, and working conditions.when they've finally eliminated unions, something they've also been working on for decades.

    31. Jose Luis Lira says:

      Land of the free? … heck, I’m beginning to wonder. More so with the “ways” the present administration is “ruling” .. without regard/respect for the limits as stated under the U.S. Constitution. And if Obama is re-elected, it wont be long before all people in the U.S.A. may find themselves under a dictatorship. All the signs are there

    32. MARY says:


    33. Jeanne Stotler says:

      If the restictions of selling Insurance across state lines and open it to fair trading and competition, prices would come down, remember it's the feds that put the restrictions there in the first place, also if they eliminated the special Insurance (we pay for) that the congress and President enjoy as well as SCOTUS, that would also help bring cost down. We had reasonable health Ins., it was called "Hospitlization" and it just covered hospital visits, ER, we paid for everyday expenses, hospitalzation paid for operations, etc.
      REMEMBER this, the MORE YOU want paid, the more it's going to COST, and the cost associated with these NEW inclusions will be passed on to you as well, extra help, more paperwork both on the doctors part and the Ins. co's part. Anyone who thinks OBAMA care is going to bring down cost, I've some swell land in the middle of the Florida everglades, I'll sell you.

    34. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Obamacare's going down in flames.

    35. Mike in Hickory says:

      Quoting from Obamacare Comes Before the Supreme Court: "No matter the outcome of the Court’s ruling in June, Congress can and should act now to repeal Obamacare and rid the land of this intolerable act."
      True enough, but by now we should know better thant to count on it. Why? Because of politicians, their bureaucrats, and other officials in all branches and agencies of "officialdom" at all levels, led and populated by people either willifully indoctrinated by and dedicated to or at least sufficiently influenced by a Statist agenda and doctrine.
      So we may yet hope that the the Supreme Court opines against all of "Obamacare" and/or the next Congress entirely defunds and repeals that "Obamanation" (which a certain Congress and President imposed against both Constitutionally prescribed and their own promises, procedures, rules, and safeguards), but by now we should know better than to count on that, and that's our, the people's fault, because of failing too much and to long to be vigilant and insistent enough that our Constitutional principles of limited government be enforced and individual and united freedoms be protected.

    36. GUEST says:

      Thomas Jefferson Was Correct………The Tree Of Liberty Needs The Blood Of Those Who Would Do their Best To Cut It Down'! Eliminated.

    37. Mark Simmons says:

      From a legal perspective Obamacare should be struck down 7 ways from Sunday, but this decision isn't about what is legal.

      Having Elena Kagan on the Court in this case is the equivalent of being a defendant and watching the prosecuting attorney complete their arguments then stand up and take the seat of judge and jury. But this case is not about justice.

      This case is about power and ideology. With one side that wants to shred the Constitution and transform us from a freedom loving Republic to a tyrannical socialist state . . . and do so IN SPITE of the law and at the expense of YOUR freedom, YOUR liberties, and YOUR God-given rights.

      That's what this is really about.

    38. Betty Kistenmacher says:

      I pray that Obama care falls flat.If not we are done we are living on Social Security and raising a grandson.We pay for our own health care the rest can do the same.I believe congress over stepped their boundry's.Please agree against this. what ever you do.

    39. Sovereign States VS The Federal Government
      This whole subject of "sovereignty" begs the question of what happens when the federal government acts outside its limited power, or what happens when the federal government improperly executes limited functions in such a way that one or more of the "sovereign states", and/or state's citizens, suffers harm as a result.
      The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution was the state's original attempt (one might argue a futile attempt) to provide preemptive protection for the people from an onerous and tyrannical federal government: "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."

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.