Ron Paul Predicts Supreme Court Will Find Health Care Law Constitutional

Ron Paul predicted Monday that the Supreme Court would uphold health care reform as constitutional.

Oral arguments begin this week on the Affordable Care Act, which has faced numerous legal challenges in the two years since President Obama signed it into law.

At the center of much of the controversy is the law's "individual mandate," which beginning in 2014, would require most Americans to have health insurance or face tax penalties.

Paul said on Bloomberg Television that he believed the court would not overturn the law.

“I suspect they're going to rule it constitutional, but that is a big guess out of thin air,” he said according to The Hill, explaining, “this Supreme Court is slightly better than in the past, [but] they haven't done a real good job in defending the free market and the original intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause.”

The commerce clause is a key part of the argument for the Affordable Care Act's constitutionality.

Paul said that if the Supreme Court were to support the law, it would "be a real tragedy."

Comments

[Afi Keita James]

08:52 PM on 06/28/2012

The Death of america is finally here

[josie klapper]

06:14 PM on 03/28/2012

If the SCOTUS does over turn the new Health law it will have to over turn Wickham to do so.
Mind you, Wickham NEEDS to be overturned.

[Look Beyond Your Nose]

12:51 PM on 03/28/2012

Here come the parrots chanting, "well, why don't you move to Somalia..."

Just watch...

[Look Beyond Your Nose]

12:44 PM on 03/28/2012

In case you Obamabots haven't heard...

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the AUMF, a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".

Source: Wikipedia excerpt

[Iam12Vote]

09:38 PM on 03/27/2012

A return to 19th century medicine is not really what I would prescribe for 21st century America.
But if you would - I have this miracle Indian snake oil medicine that cures dropsy, dyspepsia, the vapors, bilious fever, liver complaints, the yips, spring fever and French pox. It's brewed from secret ingredients I cannot divulge. But you can have this miracle cure for only 29.95 for a month's supply! Order two bottles and save on shipping!

[Nathalie Me]

06:50 PM on 03/27/2012

AH people I'm sure if the Media was to show Paul in his true light you would have all liked him! But since they kept him out of their news coverage unless for bashing purposes you all think he's an IDIOT!
My question is are your opinions really YOUR opinions? or is it the result of media BRAINWASHING? Remember they've been making you choose the wrong candidates!

[maninal2]

08:38 AM on 03/28/2012

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[Last Bastion]

04:51 PM on 03/27/2012

Paul has been prescient for decades, though he states that his prediction on the Supreme Court ruling for Obamacare's constitutionality is conjecture. If you gotta sec, tally on the web's only worldwide, realtime Ron Paul geo-tag map: ronpaulitic.com

[maninal2]

08:58 AM on 03/28/2012

Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law.

Most of the bills that he does sponsor usually involve some attempt to eliminate or hamstring government activity, such as proposals to abolish OSHA, disband the Department of Education, and repeal the income tax

You should look up the word prescient. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

[miket23]

09:05 AM on 03/28/2012

Good. We should have reps repealing more laws, not enacting more. We have enough laws on the books. Nobody even knows how many we have. What is so admirable about passing more laws??

[miket23]

09:34 AM on 03/28/2012

"Your opinion is baseless and nieve. You provide no evidence to support your claims."

Where is the authority for the Patriot Act? Where is the authority for the extrajudicial indefinite detainment clause in the NDAA bill? Where is the authority for the SOPA/PIPA laws which although not passed are currently being reworked in the Senate only because of the public outcry and politicians changing their minds at the last minute? And as per the topic of this article, where is the authority for the federal govt to punish individuals for not buying a particular product or service?

Who's naive?

[planores]

11:30 AM on 03/27/2012

Just how knowledgeable is paul on the constitution?

In June of 07' he sponsored HR res 46 which was proposing an amendment to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Two weeks later, he withdrew the bill after he was informed that the 14th amendment had nothing to do with birth right citizenship.

This is the paulbots constitutional scholar?

[miket23]

11:51 AM on 03/27/2012

I'm sure he was referencing this clause in the 14th: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Otherwise, show me the quote or reference when he explained his withdrawal of the bill.

On another note, what is this self righteous condemnation for contrary opinion that degenerates into those "paulbots" or other silly name-calling. Debate the issue and make an argument. And I'm not sure what this has to do with the constitutionality of the ACA.

[planores]

12:09 PM on 03/27/2012

I listed the resolution in my post. Do you not know how to use the internet?

[Tootsie56]

09:29 PM on 03/27/2012

His profession before this one was an OB/GYN. Tell ya anything? People ooh and aah over him but he's no different than the rest of the lifetime pols. He just has a few far out ideas so the anti-gov't types glome onto him. He's as conservative as the other gop's

[miket23]

10:19 PM on 03/27/2012

"People ooh and aah over him but he's no different than the rest of the lifetime pols."
>> Being the lone "no" vote on more Congressional bills than any other Congressperson. Giving back part of his Congressional budget back to the US Treasury every year. Persistently voting against and speaking out against the bipartisan policy of perpetual war, loss of civil liberties and privacy, abuses of executive power. Shedding light on the secret dealings and confiscation of wealth of the Federal Reserve Bank. Refusing lobbyist money and pandering to special interests (even Jack Abramoff admitted, unsolicited, that no lobbyist even tried going to Paul for favors). One of the very few Republicans who frequently co-sponsored legislation with progressives across the political aisle. He's no different?

"He's as conservative as the other gop's"
>> No, the other GOP's are NOT conservative. They are very much for big government, just their form of big government... namely in social and foreign policy.

"He just has a few far out ideas so the anti-gov't types glome onto him."
>> What would you consider "far out ideas"? And people need to differentiate limited federal government with anti-govt.

[Crosby Lyman]

10:40 AM on 03/27/2012

The commerce clause does not give Congress the authority to require that I enter into commerce. Its the authority to "regulate commerce" -- not initiate commercial activity.

[planores]

11:03 AM on 03/27/2012

That's interesting. Could you please show us where in the Constitution it requires those of us who have health insurance, to pay higher taxes to cover people like you, that refuse to take personal responsibility for your own healthcare?

[miket23]

11:23 AM on 03/27/2012

That's a fair point. However, I don't see how granting more federal authority to correct existing problems is the answer. This law is unprecedented in that never has the federal government been granted authority to punish individuals for not purchasing a product or service. There is a constitutional argument to be made that we are going in the wrong direction with this law with respect to centralizing power.

[Crosby Lyman]

11:27 AM on 03/27/2012

You haven't given me anything except a stake in a $16 trillion debt.

[maninal2]

09:02 AM on 03/28/2012

So says the nobody blog poster. Did you get your Constitutional degree from a box of Cheerios?

[Crosby Lyman]

10:45 AM on 03/28/2012

Personal attack involving cereal -- I'm starting to think you're still in kindergarden.

[kitkatt 1]

02:23 PM on 03/28/2012

Wow, who cares about blog posting hierarchy, do you really think that you're some big-whig on this site? That's pretty hilarious!

[Crosby Lyman]

10:37 AM on 03/27/2012

All I hear from the Paul critics are personal attacks. Its so weak. I hear he's this, he's that, he, he, he, he -- stop trying to hide from the real issues. Personal attacks are last refuge of the defeated.

[johnny strike]

08:43 AM on 03/29/2012

also notice that most paul supporters are polite, and well read in politics and economics, while the attackers (not all) but enough to point out are largely snipers, and loud mouths who name call, make trollish jokes, and who mostly repeat what they hear on TV.

[Tejascc]

10:04 AM on 03/27/2012

Ron Paul claims to be some sort of an expert on the constitution so I am sure Mr. Paul has known all along the Health Care law was a legal and binding document in accordance with the constitution. However, it does not fit into his scheme of things and that is to deny most lower income Americans health care. Paul says if the Supreme Court supports the law, it would be a "real tragedy". A tragedy for the courts to uphold the constitution. What a hypocrite.

[CFLM]

10:29 AM on 03/27/2012

No one is denied health care...ever. Your argument is that it is right to steal money from those who take responsibility for their lives and give it to those who don't..when the very people you are defending in this case already have access to health care.

[Tejascc]

10:56 AM on 03/27/2012

Wrong..... The people I am defending do not have access to healthcare due to income. Responsible people that just happen to be on the lower side of the economy. Of course they have access to emergency rooms which we the insured pay for but that is not health care. The affordable health care law will at least make these folks contribute some to to a system that is now overloaded and take some pressure off of us.

[maninal2]

08:48 AM on 03/28/2012

No one is denied EMERGENCY care. That is the most expensive care provided. Taxpayers are on the hook for that care.

[kitkatt 1]

02:25 PM on 03/28/2012

I'd trust RP's knowledge of the Constitution over yours any day

[RC Hindle]

09:49 AM on 03/27/2012

Funny how Paul's supporters like to paint him as being an alternative.

I see that painting as one of Bozo the clown.

[Belle Starr]

09:56 AM on 03/27/2012

. . . and I thought America was waking up to our savior that would return us to true liberty . . . .

[Serio420]

02:18 PM on 03/27/2012

If it makes you feel any better, I used to be a liberal, until I decided to actually listen to Ron Paul. I think the video "Ron Paul was right" did it for me.

[miket23]

09:37 PM on 03/27/2012

"What about the Emancipation Proclamation that Lincoln issued on Jan. 1, 1863 freeing the slaves in the Southern states? Looks to me like a prez CAN offer liberty.

But Ronnie isn't another Lincoln."

>>> Wrong. The 13th and 14th amendment gave them freedom and legal rights under our Constitution.

Second, it's a good thing Ronnie is no Lincoln who abused executive power much like our present day Presidents continue

Third, Lincoln was NOT opposed to slavery. In his words from Lincoln/Douglas debates:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

(cont)

[CFLM]

10:35 AM on 03/27/2012

Whats funny like bozo is that Ron Paul has defended his position in compliance with his oath of office for the entire length of his political career. He is in the minority of course and is labeled an outcast, but the majority of our representatives have not done so and we are currently in debt to the point of no return without bankruptcy. We have depression level unemployment. And the solution is to go into more debt, create more regulation, increase the size of the federal government, etc. I'm wrong that's not bozo, that's insanity.

[maninal2]

09:03 AM on 03/28/2012

I didn't know his oath of office was to accomplish virtually nothing in every term he's, I say laughingly, served.

[Twelve]

09:45 AM on 03/27/2012

Ron, Ron, Ron, the men in white coats are waiting......

[CFLM]

10:35 AM on 03/27/2012

Solution? Or just rhetoric and name calling?

[Twelve]

10:50 AM on 03/27/2012

Nope - the truth.

[Tootsie56]

09:41 PM on 03/27/2012

You can't name 3 things Paul stands for that even make sense to any thinking person. He's great at sound bites and really good on one or two things but he can't quite get to the point of his arguments. But at least he's stopped saying idiotic things like reinstating "back of the bus" laws.

[johnny strike]

08:49 AM on 03/29/2012

another one who proves my point. and a repeat troll. don't you folks have other interests?

[cregis]

09:45 AM on 03/27/2012

Wonder if Ron Paul is on Medicare or some other government paid insurance?

[CFLM]

10:36 AM on 03/27/2012

Nope. Hasn't been ever...and gives money back to the treasury every year from his congressional budget. So does his son Rand by the way.

[Tootsie56]

09:42 PM on 03/27/2012

He has a fantastic retirement and health care furnished by the taxpayers.

[zipperman]

09:39 AM on 03/27/2012

Ron Paul needs to go practice his politics in a nursing home.

[CFLM]

10:37 AM on 03/27/2012

Practicing politics in the nursing home won't work. The people in those are the reason we are here. That is why when he goes to college campuses, he sells out the halls he's speaking in.

[planores]

10:57 AM on 03/27/2012

"That is why when he goes to college campuses, he sells out the halls he's speaking in."

So his ability to attract young naive unsophisticated voters to a rally is somehow equated with him being competent to be President?

You must be kidding... right?