 |
| Supreme Court of the United States interior |
Excerpt, re-reporting by Carolyn Bennett
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Preamble (1787) to the Constitution of the United States
From today’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business, et al., Petitioners 11–393 v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinion (some of which I have excerpted) rested not on Americans’ or States’ Rights’ selfishness, individual problems, or personal anecdotes; but the “general Welfare” provision guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America.
“Far from trampling on States’ sovereignty, the ACA [Affordable
Care Act] attempts a federal solution for the very reason that the States,
acting separately, cannot meet the need. Notably, the ACA serves the general
welfare of the people of the United States while retaining a prominent
role for the States. …” (Page 36)
“Ultimately, the Court upholds the individual mandate as a
proper exercise of Congress’s power to tax and spend “for the . . . general
Welfare of the United States.” … I concur in that determination, which
makes THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s Commerce Clause essay all the more puzzling. Why
should THE CHIEF JUSTICE strive so mightily to hem in Congress’ capacity to meet
the new problems arising constantly in our ever developing modern economy? I
find no satisfying response to that question in his opinion.” (Page 37)
“Medicaid is a prototypical example of federal-state cooperation
in serving the Nation’s general welfare. Rather than
authorizing a federal agency to administer a uniform national health-care
system for the poor, Congress offered States the opportunity to tailor Medicaid
grants to their particular needs, so long as they remain within bounds set by
federal law. In shaping Medicaid, Congress did not endeavor to fix permanently
the terms participating states must meet; instead, Congress reserved the ‘right
to alter, amend, or repeal’ any provision.” (Pages 38-39)
“The Spending Clause authorizes Congress ‘to pay the Debts
and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, §8,
cl. 1. To ensure that federal funds granted to the States are spent to ‘provide
for the . . . general Welfare’ in the manner Congress intended,” ante,
at 46, Congress must of course have authority to impose limitations on the
States’ use of the federal dollars.
 |
| Supreme Court of the United States |
“… Congress’
authority to condition the use of federal funds is not confined to spending
programs as first launched.” (Page 45)
“…Yes, there are federalism-based limits on the use of
Congress’ conditional spending power. In the leading decision in this area, South
Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203 (1987), the Court identified four criteria.
“The conditions placed on federal grants to States must
(a) promote the ‘general welfare,’
(b) ‘unambiguously’ inform States
what is demanded of them,
(c) be germane ‘to the federal interest
in particular national projects or programs,’ and
(d )not ‘induce the States to
engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.’…
“States, for their part, agreed to amend their own Medicaid
plans consistent with changes from time to time made in the federal law. See 42
CFR §430.12(c)(i) (2011). And from 1965 to the present, States have regularly
conformed to Congress’ alterations of the Medicaid Act.
“THE CHIEF JUSTICE acknowledges that Congress may ‘condition
the receipt of [federal] funds on the States’ complying with restrictions on
the use of those funds,’ ante, at 50, but nevertheless concludes that the 2010
expansion is unduly coercive. His conclusion rests on three premises, each of
them essential to his theory. First, the Medicaid expansion is, in THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s
view, a new grant program, not an addition to the Medicaid program existing
before the ACA’s [Affordable Care Act] enactment. Congress, THE CHIEF JUSTICE maintains,
has threatened States with the loss of funds from an old program in an effort
to get them to adopt a new one. Second, the expansion was unforeseeable by the
States when they first signed on to Medicaid. Third, the threatened loss of
funding is so large that the States have no real choice but to participate in
the Medicaid expansion. THE CHIEF JUSTICE therefore—for the first time ever—finds
an exercise of Congress’ spending power unconstitutionally coercive. (Page 46)
“The principal standard the ACA [Affordable Care Act] sets is that the state program cover adults earning no more than 133 percent of the federal poverty line. Enforcing that prescription ensures that federal funds will be spent on health care for the poor in furtherance of Congress’ present perception of the general welfare. (Page 48)
“At bottom, my colleagues’ position is that the States’
reliance on federal funds limits Congress’ authority to alter its spending
programs.
“This gets things backwards: Congress, not the States, is
tasked with spending federal money in service of the general welfare. And each
successive Congress is empowered to appropriate funds as it sees fit. When the
110th Congress reached a conclusion about Medicaid funds that differed from its
predecessors’ view, it abridged no State’s right to ‘existing,’ or ‘pre-existing,’
funds.” (Page 59)
Sources and notes
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Nos. 11–393, 11–398 and
11–400)
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS 11–393 v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, ET AL., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., PETITIONERS
11–398 v. FLORIDA ET AL.
FLORIDA, ET AL., PETITIONERS 11–400 v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES ET AL., ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, [June 28, 2012], CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with
respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which
JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join, and an opinion with respect to Parts
III–A, III–B, and III–D.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court
Roberts was born January 27, 1955, in Buffalo, New York.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Chief Justice Roberts took his seat as Chief Justice of the
United States on September 29, 2005. Before that, he was a judge (appointed in 2003)
on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
He was Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice (1981–1982), Associate Counsel to President Ronald
Reagan, White House Counsel’s Office (1982–1986), and Principal Deputy
Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice (1989–1993). Roberts was in
private law practice in Washington, D.C., in the ears 1986–1989; and 1993–2003).
He took his academic credentials at Harvard College (A.B.,
1976) and Harvard Law School (J.D., 1979); and clerked for Judge Henry J.
Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1979–1980)
and for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the
United States (during the 1980 Term).
Roberts was born January 27, 1955, in Buffalo, New York.
Associate Justice
of the United States Supreme Court
_____________________________________
Bennett's books are available in New York State independent bookstores: Lift Bridge Bookshop: www.liftbridgebooks.com [Brockport, NY]; Sundance Books: http://www.sundancebooks.com/main.html [Geneseo, NY]; Mood Makers Books: www.moodmakersbooks.com [City of Rochester, NY]; Dog Ears Bookstore and Literary Arts Center: www.enlightenthedog.org/ [Buffalo, NY]; Burlingham Books – ‘Your Local Chapter’: http://burlinghambooks.com/ [Perry, NY 14530]; The Bookworm: http://www.eabookworm.com/ [East Aurora, NY] • See also: World Pulse: Global Issues through the eyes of Women: http://www.worldpulse.com/ http://www.worldpulse.com/pulsewire http://www.facebook.com/#!/bennetts2ndstudy
Justice Ginsburg took her seat on the Supreme of the United
States on August 10, 1993. Before her appointment to the High Court, she was a
Judge (appointed in 1980) of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.
In the 1970s, she launched the Women’s Rights Project of the
American Civil Liberties Union, served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from (1970,
1973–1980), and on the National Board of Directors (1974–1980).
In the 1960s, Ginsburg was a research associate, associate
director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure (1961–1963);
a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law (1963–1972) and Columbia
Law School (1972–1980); and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California (1977–1978)
She took her academic credentials at Cornell University (B.A.),
Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School (LL.B); and clerked for the
Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (from 1959–1961).
Justice Ginsburg was born March 15, 1933) in Brooklyn, New
York.
About the Supreme Court of the United States, http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
Preamble to the Constitution of the United State reprinted
at Britannica
_____________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment