But, more to the point, all the GOP talk about repealing heath care reform is just blowing so much smoke up the asses of its red-meat, wing-nut base.
Even IF the GOP takes back both the House AND Senate, any attempt to repeal health care reform will go down in flames under Obama's veto pen. As for the lawsuits being readied by attorney's general in several states:
<blockquote>“This whole campaign challenging the constitutionality is just the latest chapter in conservative right-wing scare tactics designed to frighten people,” said Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel to the National Senior Citizens Law Center. “It really is a natural heir to the death panels, the natural heir to the government takeover. Frankly they’re embarrassing from a legal standpoint. I am confident they will be summarily dismissed by even conservative federal judges.” - <a href=http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/24/2240759.aspx>MSNBC</a></blockquote>
Basically, Mr. Lazarus is saying that the GOP is just pissing in the wind with these lawsuits. And aren't Republicans against frivolous lawsuits anyways?
In either case, the Republican huffing and puffing about repeal and lawsuits is just that...So much hot air, with one goal in mind...Fund-raising.
GOP fund-raising letters are now chock full 'o talking points about carrying on the fight to repeal health-care reform. And if you don't send them gobs of cash <b><font color=red>NOW</font></b> the communistical, nazist, socialist, muslim Democrats will be at your doorstep demanding to eat your babies.
These desperate, fear-laden, sans fact pleas are nothing more than a means of separating fools from their money. And there are plenty of credulous fools out there who will cheerfully part with their money in support of the GOP.
Obamacare is clearly unconstitutional BP
This question is at the root of lawsuits filed by 14 states challenging Obamacare's requirement that those without health insurance must obtain it or face fines of $2,085 per household or 2.5 percent of income - whichever is greater.
Defenders of the new law point to the constitutional provision empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Commerce Clause to extend well beyond what a common-sense reading would support. In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the high court ruled that farmer Roscoe Filburn could not grow wheat in excess of limits set by the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act. It did not matter that the wheat was grown on his own land for his own use - in this case feeding his chickens. According to the court, "control of total supply ... depends upon the control of individual supply." If enough farmers like Filburn grew their own chicken feed, they would not buy it, and this would have an impact on commerce nationwide. The Congress that can regulate Roscoe Filburn's chicken feed can regulate anything.
Still, Congress never claimed it could force people to take up farming or any other vocation. This is the radical interpretation of the Commerce Clause embedded in the health care bill. It is not a power to regulate commercial activity, but to compel it.
The change is unprecedented. All previous Commerce Clause cases have dealt with regulating pre-existing activity, but if someone is not buying health insurance, there is no commerce to regulate. The clause has never been used to compel private citizens not engaged in commerce to spend money on a government-mandated program. This is a new, extreme and potentially dangerous interpretation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/24/obamas-constitutional-malpractice/?feat=home_showcase