Obama, SCOTUS & ObamaKare:

That could be you, or that could be me, above. Is that how you envision your final days, having contributed to our society as you have, as a taxpayer, as a producer, as an individual who may no longer have a family to take care of you?

The bulk of America doesn't have a clue about SCOTUS or the recent arguments made last week regarding ObamaKare. My very valued readers do, as well as the readers of various Leftist blogs and sites.

Depending on one's bent, either the actual arguments made in front of SCOTUS last week by the government were perhaps the worst stammering presentations in the last 30 years, or the work of Constitutional scholars and unimpeachable due to their inherent foundational logic and clarity.

An actual vote on the issue of ObamaKare was already made this past Friday (March 30th) by SCOTUS. That much is certain. It is now up to the various justices and, truthfully -- their staffs -- to craft their individual opinions and to craft the majority opinion.

That said, there are now major news stories surfacing regarding Mr Obama and his view on this amazingly-critical ruling that will either be the major SUCCESS or the major FAILURE of his term.

From Reuters.com:

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama took an opening shot at conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Monday, warning that a rejection of his sweeping healthcare law would be an act of "judicial activism" that Republicans say they abhor.

Obama's advisers say they have not prepared contingency plans if the measure fails. But the president -- who expressed confidence that the court would uphold the law -- made clear how he would address it on the campaign trail if the court strikes it down.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

The Supreme Court justices are expected to issue decisions in the dispute by late June, a time when the presidential campaign season is likely to be in full swing.

"So there's not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."

The Supreme Court is looking at whether Congress exceeded its power to regulate commerce in U.S. states with that mandate.

And this time I concur with Mr Obama: yes, there is a human element to the forthcoming SCOTUS opinion, and that is: does it conform to the US Constitution? Mr Obama is making the anti-Constitutional argument, but I'll get to that in a moment.

From YahooNews.com, Mr Obama warns the Supreme Court of the United States that it is "unelected," despite its having a firm hold and is in keeping with the triumvirate of the US branches: the Executive, the Legislative and Judicial. The Judicial stands alone -- as does the Executive:

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.

In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Pointed comments from Supreme Court justices last week during three days of compelling hearings have convinced many commentators that the court, expected to rule in June, will declare the law, dubbed ObamaCare, unconstitutional.

And, I submit, it will AGAIN come down to a 5-to-4 vote. And ObamaKare will be stricken, I prognosticate.

Because the US Constitution doesn't guarantee positive rights, it guarantees negative rights! Please read and familiarize yourself with the Constitution from my post here:

POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

- The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures

- It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT "guarantee" so-called "rights" to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs -- rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: "RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM."

Leftists wish to enable a solid "privileges or immunities clause" which becomes open-ended and -- therefore -- susceptible to specific 'interpretation" by such pre-chosen federal judges!

A "logical extension" might be to allow "privileges or immunities" to create new "rights" which could "guarantee" social or economic "equality."

If the law moves this way, then your possessions, my possessions, could and would be "redistributed" as seen fit by your government.

Your "rights" will be parsed out, in dribs and drabs, by appointed berobed iconoclasts and Leftists.

This will supplant "representative" decision-making and throw decisions onto those who are appointed and -- therefore -- completely immune from accountability or responsibility.

Make no mistake: the purpose of Mr Obama's will is to impose federal overarching positives upon each and every one of us; it isn't about what may be limited; it is ALL about what might be expanded for us. Because we exist in one class: as voters who can be guilted and manipulated.

We exist as a class to be subsumed and guilted and lied to and turned upside-down to shake out each and every penny we possess.

Further, here's how Mr Obama will play it come November: as the perennial BLACK VICTIM. He had his "centerpiece" struck down by those elite whites who are evil, ugly, monied, and form the backbone of a strict conspiracy to strike down any advancement whatsoever of blacks and other "minorities" -- except that, moreover, minorities in major Leftist states are WHITES, as in Fornicalia.

But, of course, statistics be damned.

What say you? ObamaKare Constitutional or un-Constitutional?

You know where I weigh in:

The US Government: running your health care in the same caring, effective, efficient, considerate, innovative and understanding fashion as your local DMV.

BZ