It’s a date: Supreme Court to hear Obamacare arguments March 26, 27, 28

posted at 12:45 pm on December 19, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Consider the dates “pinned down.” SCOTUS will hear oral arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare not just in “late March,” as was the word previously, but specifically on March 26, 27 and 28. The Hill’s Sam Baker reports:

The Supreme Court will begin on March 26 with one hour of arguments on whether it can reach a decision on the health law before 2014. There is a possibility that a separate federal law prevents the courts from ruling until the law’s individual mandate has taken effect.

On March 27, the justices will hear two hours of arguments on the core question of whether the mandate is unconstitutional.

And on March 28, the court will hear arguments on two issues: how much, if any, of the law’s other provisions can be upheld if the mandate is unconstitutional; and whether the health law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional.

As Ed pointed out when the Court first agreed to take the case, not even the Republican primary debates are likely to have as much impact on the 2012 general election as this particular showdown between the liberal and conservative wings of the Supreme Court. And as the New York Post noted at the time, March dates allow plenty of time for a decision in late June, more than four months before Election Day.

In part because the GOP candidates all ostensibly agree about the course to pursue regarding Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act hasn’t necessarily received as much play in the GOP debates as it should have. But, as a reminder, a plurality of Americans still want the law repealed — and with good reason.

How is Obamacare wrong for America? Let me count the ways. The individual mandate is an intrusion on liberty, the tax increases are a drag on job creation and the employer mandate is a burden on businesses, to name just a few. Honestly accounted, the law is also a budget-buster.

The Supreme Court’s debate won’t touch most of that, but, if it decides the individual mandate is unconstitutional and decides it’s not severable from the rest of the law, Obamacare will effectively be dead. That alone would be worth celebrating — but the perception of Obama that that decision would create — that he’s a careless-of-the-Constitution president — might actually have the longer-lasting impact on the law and politics if it helped to lead to a loss for the incumbent in November.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Finally, progress on a ruling on Controversial and Unconstitutional Obamacare.

Chip on December 19, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Qui bono?

aquaviva on December 19, 2011 at 12:48 PM

I thought the general consensus was that this is unlikely to be struck down? I actually will miss the hope that we could or would get rid of this thing via the Courts.

earlgrey133 on December 19, 2011 at 12:50 PM

that he’s a careless-of-the-Constitution president — might actually have the longer-lasting impact on the law and politics if it helped to lead to a loss for the incumbent in November.

…plus, that the wasted so much time on this futility and error, while jobs/economy went to hell.

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2011 at 12:50 PM

When the Federal Government can tell you…………how much water you can flush your toilet with, how much air pressure you can have in your tires, how warm you can keep your home (California here it comes), how much water pressure you can have in your shower head…..

….why can’t they tell you what to eat and what to do and where to live and….and….and….?

….all coming under OBAMACARE.

PappyD61 on December 19, 2011 at 12:50 PM

So, that would make the announcement of their decision about 3 weeks before general election

ConservativePartyNow on December 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Right in the middle of the Republican primaries and just as Obama’s re-election campaign will just be beginning to ramp up.

Too bad they couldn’t wait until August or September next year… but that’d come off as too politically motivated I suspect.

Logus on December 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM

I plan to feel queasy that week.

Jeddite on December 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Obama is going to be very mad about the timing. Those are perfect golfing days!

RonnyTucker on December 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM

earlgrey133 on December 19, 2011 at 12:50 PM

By whom? The editorial board of the NYT does not count as general consensus.

NotCoach on December 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM

but the perception of Obama that that decision would create — that he’s a careless-of-the-Constitution president — might actually have the longer-lasting impact on the law and politics if it helped to lead to a loss for the incumbent in November.

I disagree. Whichever way SCOTUS rules, the opposition will be more mobilized for November.

I expect SCOTUS to rule the mandate is unconstitutional at which point we’ll be hearing about how the US healthcare system ranks below some third world country, blah, blah, blah, people are dying on the streets, blah, blah, blah.

And most of those people who had become disenfranchised with Obama will come out in droves to support him to get universal healthcare this time around.

ButterflyDragon on December 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM

No counting chickens yet

But I’ll be praying for sure

cmsinaz on December 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Marks the first time – I have put these dates into my personal and professional Outlook calendars.

jake-the-goose on December 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM

How is Obamacare wrong for America? Let me count the ways.

The individual mandate is an intrusion on liberty,

Curious that people who are supposedly for Liberty i.e. Liberals – would push such an Anti-Liberty takeover of the healthcare system.

It’s almost like they aren’t really Liberal as they say..

Chip on December 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Either way this goes .. BO is in a bad place. Over reaching if it falls in the court or Over Reaching if it does not .. A very divisive issue for Dems across the board

Cincy Conservative on December 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM

There is no facet of our lives which can be separated from the Commerce Clause. Should the Court approve of the mandate, and I think that it will, then liberty is lost … and America is lost.

We will have become pawns of the State … we will have become controlled.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM

The individual mandate is an intrusion on liberty

Two questions –

1) The Swiss, Germans and Dutch essentially have a similar private insurance based system. Is the concept of mandatory insurance considered controversial in those countries?

2) Mitt Romney has stated that it is unfair for uninsured people to benefit from a system paid for by the insured. If the mandate is declared unconstitutional, can we have e.g. penalty fees instead?

MARCU$

mlindroo on December 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM

And you whom it likely won’t help?

Archivarix on December 19, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Well how about that…on my birthday. I guess hoping for one huge birthday wish of repeal is too good to hope for? First a motorcycle, then Tyra Banks, and now repealing Obamacare…my birthday wishes are typically too lofty for my own good perhaps.

Sammo21 on December 19, 2011 at 12:56 PM

mlindroo How about we get the government entirely out of healthcare to begin with. That’d be awesome. I don’t want to pay for your lazy ass to go be a poet, or whatever the hell it is you want to do. Try growing up and being a responsible adult and taking care of yourself.

Vancomycin on December 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

So, that would make the announcement of their decision about 3 weeks before general election

ConservativePartyNow on December 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Shows how much I pay attention to the processes of the SCOTUS. Is this a typical time between hearing and decision; six months?

Logus on December 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

To mandate is to dictate.

To approve of this mandate will be to approve of a dictatorship.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

The tax increases are a drag on job creation and the employer mandate is a burden on businesses, to name just a few.

Honestly accounted, the law is also a budget-buster.

So not only is it an assault on freedom, but it’ll run us into that fiscal iceberg that much faster.

Not to mention that if the Socialists succeed in setting up a proto-National healthcare system, it’ll have the kind compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Postal service and the great customer service of your local DMV.

But they’ll say, who cares how bad it could get – it’ll be Free!

Chip on December 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

And if you like the Swiss or German model so much…move there and leave me the hell alone.

Vancomycin on December 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

How will this help Romney?

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM

It would speed up the process if they just asked Kennedy how he was going to vote.

I thhnk he’ll vote for dictatorship.

Maybe they can adress eliminating fatty foods (unless your name is Michelle, censoring the internet, mandates by unelected bureacrats that inhabit the EPA, NRLB, DOE etc, in the same ruling.

acyl72 on December 19, 2011 at 1:03 PM

OK, then I guess we can expect that Kagan recusal announcement any day now?

thurman on December 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

This will be a 5-4 decision folks, with sketchy Kennedy casting the deciding vote. The anticipation is mind wrenching. One can only hope that ol’ sketchy will bring his right-minded brain with him on decision day.

Scorched_Earth on December 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

So not only is it an assault on freedom, but it’ll run us into that fiscal iceberg that much faster.

Not to mention that if the Socialists succeed in setting up a proto-National healthcare system, it’ll have the kind compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Postal service and the great customer service of your local DMV.

But they’ll say, who cares how bad it could get – it’ll be Free!

Chip on December 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I’ve never heard it so well put. Excellent job.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2011 at 1:05 PM

mlindroo on December 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Let’s approach this issue from this angle:

Is the Constitution meant to be constraint on the government or a constraint on the people?

Chip on December 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I don’t know why it quoted me. Sigh. Great analysis, Chip.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM

1) The Swiss, Germans and Dutch essentially have a similar private insurance based system. Is the concept of mandatory insurance considered controversial in those countries?

2) Mitt Romney has stated that it is unfair for uninsured people to benefit from a system paid for by the insured. If the mandate is declared unconstitutional, can we have e.g. penalty fees instead?

mlindroo on December 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Those countries’ constitutions do not have the limited, enumerated powers that ours does. That’s why it is controversial here and not there.

Uninsured people always had to go to the emergency room for treatment. Now, either those people are benefiting from the system which therefore makes Øbamacare unnecessary or they are not which makes Romney wrong. Which is it?

Odysseus on December 19, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I think it is good to remind the public just how reaching Obamacare is. The SCOTUS hearings will showcase just how un-Constitutional Obama and his merry band of socialists have been.

The only thing I wonder is just how many manufactured town hall meetings with the jug-eared idiot once-again pushing his agenda on a public who are against the idea of government-mandated healthcare more now than ever before. If Dems were smart (and they are not), they would send a delegation of party elders to the White House to have “the talk” with Obama about his plans for the future. He’s not unelectable at this point but when he starts campaigning in earnest and gets thin-skinned when anybody mentions one of his many failures then he’ll come off as the petty narcissistic bully that he is.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Would Romney really repeal Obamacare?

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM

No counting chickens yet

But I’ll be praying for sure

cmsinaz on December 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Prayers are good. The reality is that the court leans left and Kagen will not recuse herself even though she was in on planning the strategy for the jug-eared idiot.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Or SCOTUS could punt. Look at the first quoted paragraph again:

The Supreme Court will begin on March 26 with one hour of arguments on whether it can reach a decision on the health law before 2014. There is a possibility that a separate federal law prevents the courts from ruling until the law’s individual mandate has taken effect.

If they decide that they cannot decide until 2014, then that will be the extent of this year’s message. A lot of uncertainty gets thrown into the Presidential campaigns is about it. Furthermore, a non-decision is in Obama’s favor – as long as he has not lost anything (so far), the advantage goes to the sitting President.

That, to me, would be the worst possible SCOTUS outcome.

ss396 on December 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Scalia should recuse himself for having made statements in the past supporting an originalist view of the constitution.

The Rogue Tomato on December 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

To mandate is to dictate.

To approve of this mandate will be to approve of a dictatorship.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

And then if 0bama is re-elected, because we can’t field any decent candidates, then it will be time for sec-cession.

Mirimichi on December 19, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Scalia should recuse himself for having made statements in the past supporting an originalist view of the constitution.

The Rogue Tomato on December 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Who else should recuse themselves? Can you think of any, because I can think of two more…. both women (sort of).

upinak on December 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM

The individual mandate is an intrusion on liberty

The Swiss, Germans and Dutch essentially have a similar private insurance based system. Is the concept of mandatory insurance considered controversial in those countries?

mlindroo on December 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM

What does that have to do with whether or not it is constitutional in the US? Or even whether or not US citzens would, by and large, consider it an intrusion on liberty?

People emigrated to the US to get away from impositions on liberty that other people were fine with so they stayed where they were.

Lily on December 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM

We’ll see how this goes…then I’ll mull over what Newt has been saying about the courts.

KOOLAID2 on December 19, 2011 at 1:16 PM

The Supreme Court’s debate won’t touch most of that,

Sure, why waste their precious time?

OK, then I guess we can expect that Kagan recusal announcement any day now?

LOL!

squint on December 19, 2011 at 1:17 PM

it’ll be Free!

Chip on December 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Well, it is.

/

CW on December 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Scalia should recuse himself for having made statements in the past supporting an originalist view of the constitution.

The Rogue Tomato on December 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg should recuse herself simply because she’s soon to be a big user of healthcare, given her age.

BobMbx on December 19, 2011 at 1:22 PM

So, that would make the announcement of their decision about 3 weeks before general election

ConservativePartyNow on December 19, 2011 at 12:51 PM

The Court will issue opinions in all argued cases before it leaves for summer recess. Thus, any decision will be handed down at the latest by the very end of June or early July.

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

The Court will issue opinions in all argued cases before it leaves for summer recess. Thus, any decision will be handed down at the latest by the very end of June or early July.

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Scalia already has the opinion written. He’s shootin’ for a quick turnaround. All he needs is the Jewish mind control beam used so expertly in Honduras a few years back. Kennedy will be helpless under such technology.

BobMbx on December 19, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Is this a typical time between hearing and decision
Logus on December 19, 2011 at 12:57 PM

For a blockbuster, it is not unusual for it to take quite a few months. However, the current practice is for all decisions in a term to be handed down before the Court breaks for summer recess at the end of June (rarely the very beginning of July). The exceptions to this are extremely rare and generally not a result of the importance of the case. So, even though oral arguments aren’t being held until March, we will still know the answer by that time at the latest.

McDuck on December 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

…might actually have the longer-lasting impact on the law and politics if it helped to lead to a loss for the incumbent in November.

It won’t matter to the base.

Obama could stand on the steps of the Capital reading the communist manifesto while wearing a tutu and smoking a crackpipe and 41% of the public would still pull the lever for him.

Sad isn’t it.

BacaDog on December 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Scalia should recuse himself for having made statements in the past supporting an originalist view of the constitution.

The Rogue Tomato on December 19, 2011 at 1:14 PM

What about Kagen? Or is she More Equal than Scalia?

Del Dolemonte on December 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM

SCOTUS will punt it to 2014 leaving the issue to repeal the number one issue of the 2012 election. With indies not happy with the individual mandate, they might swing big to R’s in hopes of repeal. Here’s hoping…

seven_of_8 on December 19, 2011 at 1:38 PM

This will be a 5-4 decision folks, with sketchy Kennedy casting the deciding vote. The anticipation is mind wrenching. One can only hope that ol’ sketchy will bring his right-minded brain with him on decision day.

Scorched_Earth on December 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

This is correct. It will ultimately come down to Justice Kennedy’s vote. Is this the way our Founding Fathers envisioned how this country would be run? Not!!!

jfs756 on December 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM

ANY SCOTUS decision on obozocare will be bad for the d-cRAT socialist extremists and good for America….

If the Supremes appropriately flush the obozocare atrocity, it will be another sign to all Americans that OBOZO and the d-cRAT socialists are working against America, against the US Constitution and against the best interests and wishes of all Americans. It will further increase the landslide defeat of all d-cRAT socialists in Nov. 2012.

If the Supremes allow this atrocity to stand it will further energize the electorate to throw out those that created this insult to America and further increase the landslide defeat of all d-cRAT socialists in Nov. 2012 by electing a president and congress committed to its repeal.

TeaPartyNation on December 19, 2011 at 1:42 PM

If I were the Republicans, I would make this a campaign issue, not only for Obama himself, but also for the COngress. The Democrats are the ones who met in the backroom concocting this whole deal and then springing it on people to vote for. Pelosi’s famous, “We have to pass it so we know what’s in it.” shows what a joke the Democrats are, as far as legislating. You have a Senate that refuses to put through a budget and a House that drafted legislation, behind closed doors, which affects 100% of the country based on Obama’s 53% of the vote. What gave them a mandate to do that?

bflat879 on December 19, 2011 at 1:47 PM

1) The Swiss, Germans and Dutch essentially have a similar private insurance based system. Is the concept of mandatory insurance considered controversial in those countries?

mlindroo on December 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM

The cultural differences are HUGE. Those three countries don’t have two hangups that the US does:

–An entire subculture based on freeloading off the public dime, that one political party buys votes with every election cycle. You probably know who they are without me telling you.

–A significant number of far-rightwingers that go absolutely bat$hit insane at even the mention of socialized medicine, and whose response to the uninsured is consistently “tough cookies.”

MelonCollie on December 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM

–A significant number of far-rightwingers that go absolutely bat$hit insane at even the mention of socialized medicine, and whose response to the uninsured is consistently “tough cookies.”

MelonCollie on December 19, 2011 at 1:51 PM

I think many people forget, apparently you as well, that medical costs can be paid for with cash or by setting up payment plans that every hospital is more than willingness to arrange.

I unexpectedly found myself in the hospital a while back for two weeks … with a year follow-on as an out-patient. I had no insurance and the medical facility was more than happy to arrange a fair payment plan that I’m still paying today.

Plus, it’s not “far-rightwing” to expect people to pay for services rendered, regardless of what those services are.

darwin on December 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Tina,
Speaking of Supreme Court decisions and “a careless-of-the-Constitution president”, I recommend highly that you review and write a post about this.

ITguy on December 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM

If the Supreme Court rules that the federal government can force you to buy a private product, then they will have invalidated the Constitution.

Because at that point, we’re reduced to one vote to elect at best a benevolent dictator.

NoDonkey on December 19, 2011 at 2:01 PM

ITguy on December 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Send it to tips@hotair.com

darwin on December 19, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Plus, it’s not “far-rightwing” to expect people to pay for services rendered, regardless of what those services are.

darwin on December 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I’m not saying it is.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM

I’m not saying it is.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2011 at 2:04 PM

My apologies if I misread you.

darwin on December 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM

One question I have.

I haven’t heard anywhere that Obamacare is being challenged based on the waivers that have gone out. Seems to me that selectively picking which people have to obey the law violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Has this argument been made in the courts, and, if not, why not?

caverduc on December 19, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Obama to constituency: We are going to tax your uh f—ing brains out to pay for this uh mandate, but that’s ok. It’ll be uh covered by uh Obamacare and the few uh doctors that we haven’t uh bankrupted yet. Uh , by the way, uh, I need four more years to uh, finish your uh azzez off. So uh vote for me and I’ll uh make this as painless as I uh can.

rightoption on December 19, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Why Mandated Health Insurance Is Unfair

There’s an easier way to solve the ‘free-rider’ problem.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577098384028045936.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

Vince on December 19, 2011 at 2:36 PM

This will be a 5-4 decision folks, with sketchy Kennedy casting the deciding vote. The anticipation is mind wrenching. One can only hope that ol’ sketchy will bring his right-minded brain with him on decision day.

Scorched_Earth on December 19, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Also on March 26-28, when he listens to the arguments.

Kennedy, as well as Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas need to hire extra bodyguards and food-tasters to protect them from unfortunate “accidents”…

Steve Z on December 19, 2011 at 2:56 PM

I have a sense of dark foreboding.

If this court could pass such a monstrous tyranny such as Kelo v. City of New London, what’s to prevent them from finishing the job by saying that the commerce clause allows the government to force you to purchase product?

This from the court that refused to hear any of the 0bama eligibility cases due to “lack of standing,” allowing them to avoid ordering 0bama original birth certficate to be produced, and end the continuing shroud of illegitimacy over the president. As well, they have avoided ruling on the Natural-Born-Citizen clause, allowing 0bama to run again in 2012. I assure you that if Bobby Jindal declares for president, this clause will swiftly be put on the docket by liberals.

If the individual mandate is upheld by this court in 2012, there must be a revolt, or our constitution has officially ceased to exist.

cane_loader on December 19, 2011 at 2:58 PM

It’s time for a constitutional amendment that forces Supreme-Court justices to recuse themselves on any case in which the administration that appointed them is the plaintiff or defendant.

cane_loader on December 19, 2011 at 3:08 PM

It all depends on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy wakes up on during those days and he knows it.

scotash on December 19, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Obama’s flunky Kagan will not recuse herself despite her involvement with Obamacide.

jqc1970 on December 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM

One question I have.

I haven’t heard anywhere that Obamacare is being challenged based on the waivers that have gone out. Seems to me that selectively picking which people have to obey the law violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Has this argument been made in the courts, and, if not, why not?

caverduc on December 19, 2011 at 2:32 PM

By the way, this is why Romney’s solution to Obama care is brilliant. He would apply equal protection and grant EVERYONE a waiver.

scotash on December 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Obama’s flunky Kagan will not recuse herself despite her involvement with Obamacide.

jqc1970 on December 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM

This has to be fought. With such a breathtakingly intrusive seizure of individual liberty, it is unacceptable for Kagan to be allowed to make the recusal decision for herself, with the obvious conflict of interest. There must be a way to vet the allegations of Kagan’s involvement, and for the other justices to be forced to hear a case to force a recusal.

My freedom should not depend on Elena Kagan’s conscience or professional ethics.

cane_loader on December 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Judicial Activism: Unelected courts overturning lawfully enacted statutes.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on December 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM

If the decision doesn’t favor individual liberty, I believe we have the right to riot.

Hey, the left does it all of the time. It’s time to clean house once and for all.

madmonkphotog on December 19, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I dont know anypne here who believes Obamacare was lawfully enacted or constitutional.. This will be the most significant commerce clause case since Wickard 70 years ago. it may be a 5-3decision if Kagan recuses herself as she should and must.

eaglewingz08 on December 19, 2011 at 4:25 PM

It might affect more than just this President’s lack of obedience to the Constitution. It might affect the public’s and congress’s thinking about the Constitution.

burt on December 19, 2011 at 4:52 PM

I dont know anypne here who believes Obamacare was lawfully enacted or constitutional….
eaglewingz08 on December 19, 2011 at 4:25 PM

While there is presumabley uncertainty as to the constitutionality, I haven’t seen any arguments that the law was not “lawfully enacted”. I don’t believe any of the state litigations challenging the Obama’s Health Care law have argued that the law was not lawfully enacted.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the House of Representatives 219-212, passed the Senate 60-39, and was signed into law by President Obama.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on December 19, 2011 at 5:23 PM

The mandate being struck down would be the end for Obama for sure, if it already isn’t.

HopeHeFails on December 19, 2011 at 5:32 PM

I wonder if it’s a coincidence that the Birther Summit begins March 28.

elspeth on December 19, 2011 at 5:50 PM

While there is presumabley uncertainty as to the constitutionality, I haven’t seen any arguments that the law was not “lawfully enacted”. I don’t believe any of the state litigations challenging the Obama’s Health Care law have argued that the law was not lawfully enacted.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the House of Representatives 219-212, passed the Senate 60-39, and was signed into law by President Obama.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on December 19, 2011 at 5:23 PM

If an action is made outside of legally granted authority it is not lawful. Hence if congress has not been granted the authority to enact laws of this nature, they cannot be ‘lawfully enacted’.

Fighton03 on December 19, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Right in the middle of the Republican primaries and just as Obama’s re-election campaign will just be beginning to ramp up.

Beginning to ramp up? He’s been campaigning since 2008!

speekr on December 19, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Would Romney really repeal Obamacare?

“Keep the good and repeal the bad.” This is why Romney is too big a risk to be the nominee.

wordmum on December 19, 2011 at 8:44 PM