SC Bill Would Nullify Obamacare
- Thread starter HornHuskerDad
- Start date
^That's a very interesting question. I'm hoping some of the attorneys on Hornfans will weigh in and let us know - perhaps Mr. Deez and pasotex will chime in. They're both pretty decent in explaining these things in lay terms.
HHD
HHD
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
Fascinating. I only skimmed the Printz opinion, but it seems to support South Carlina's argument much better than I ever would have guessed.
The Printz opinion addressed the constitutionality of a portion of the Brady Act. Under the Brady Act, the President was required to set up a database for background checks. Until that database was established, states were to perform the background checks. Justice Scalia, writing for a 5-4 majority of the USSC, held that this interim provision was unconstitutional for two reasons:
(1). It infringed on states' sovereignty. Each state's executive branch is under the control of that state's legislature, not Congress. Thus, Congress had no authority to tell States they had to set up a database to help the Feds enforce a law.
(2). It violated the separation of powers between Congress and the president by enabling Congress to act without the president's participation. If Congress could order states to act, Congress could render the president impotent by vesting all Federal enforcement authority in the states.
If the ACA had forced every state to set up an exchange, it seems clear that the Printz opinion would come into play. Arguably, though, ACA is different because Congress gave each state a choice to either create its own exchange or participate in the Federal exchange. I'm not sure how this will play out, but I like South Carolina's chances.
It is ironic, btw, that this law could be thrown out because it infringes on Obama's power.
The Printz opinion addressed the constitutionality of a portion of the Brady Act. Under the Brady Act, the President was required to set up a database for background checks. Until that database was established, states were to perform the background checks. Justice Scalia, writing for a 5-4 majority of the USSC, held that this interim provision was unconstitutional for two reasons:
(1). It infringed on states' sovereignty. Each state's executive branch is under the control of that state's legislature, not Congress. Thus, Congress had no authority to tell States they had to set up a database to help the Feds enforce a law.
(2). It violated the separation of powers between Congress and the president by enabling Congress to act without the president's participation. If Congress could order states to act, Congress could render the president impotent by vesting all Federal enforcement authority in the states.
If the ACA had forced every state to set up an exchange, it seems clear that the Printz opinion would come into play. Arguably, though, ACA is different because Congress gave each state a choice to either create its own exchange or participate in the Federal exchange. I'm not sure how this will play out, but I like South Carolina's chances.
It is ironic, btw, that this law could be thrown out because it infringes on Obama's power.
Thanks for the input, NJ - good points. However, now I'm confused about one of your summary statements:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
