Comments on: The Courts Should Strike Down Medicare Mandates

By: The Courts Should Strike Down Medicare Mandates - TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:25:20 +0000

[...] NatelsonTenth Amendment Center September 27, [...]

By: sheryldevereaux

sheryldevereaux — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:10:25 +0000

Your arguments made are sound on their own, but not entirely complete . I would add, that they would have much more merit and bite if the Rules of Construction were used abundantly and thoroughly in your reasoning. One of the greatest and most devistating problems with court opinions and decisions, as well as in building legislation is in the absence of the very systems used by the Founding Fathers, which they learned from William Blackstone for evaluating sound practice in support of founding documents. Rules of Construction should be the bible of legal analysis to stay on track with the Constitution. Since they have not been, but rarely, it would be obvious evidence how we got where we are.

By: MorningGeese

MorningGeese — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 10:59:35 +0000

If we can just get the right individuals in congress then we can get the rest of ObamaCare out of our personal lives. Good article.

By: imjustaregularjoe

imjustaregularjoe — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 01:26:42 +0000

The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service, and contend that congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional. Because there is no constitutional text speaking to this precise question, the answer to the CLEOs' challenge must be sought in historical understanding and practice, in the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court. We treat those three sources, in that order, in this and the next two sections of this opinion. "

By: imjustaregularjoe

imjustaregularjoe — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 01:26:23 +0000

From the description set forth above, it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme. Regulated firearms dealers are required to forward Brady Forms not to a federal officer or employee, but to the CLEOs, whose obligation to accept those forms is implicit in the duty imposed upon them to make "reasonable efforts" within five days to determine whether the sales reflected in the forms are lawful. While the CLEOs are subjected to no federal requirement that they prevent the sales determined to be unlawful (it is perhaps assumed that their state law duties will require prevention or apprehension), they are empowered to grant, in effect, waivers of the federally prescribed 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases by notifying the gun dealers that they have no reason to believe the transactions would be illegal.

By: imjustaregularjoe

imjustaregularjoe — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 01:25:43 +0000

Everyone should read the SC case Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997) In a nutshell, these two sheriffs sued the Feds and won over being told what to do by the Federal government. They claimed it was unconstitutional and the SC agreed with them. (Of course I'm paraphrasing the decision but you can read it for yourself at. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO….

"Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the CLEOs for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. In each case, the District Court held that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks was unconstitutional, but concluded that that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. 856 F. Supp. 1372 (Ariz. 1994); 854 F. Supp. 1503 (Mont. 1994). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the Brady Act's interim provisions to be unconstitutional. 66 F. 3d 1025 (1995). We granted certiorari. 518 U. S. ___ (1996).