oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Why yes, someone has to pay for what the federal government can't with Obamacare and it is the states and individuals with their increased healthcare costs. Such a sloppy job of creation and implementation they did.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/05/04/obama-expects-states-to-pick-up-obamacare-tab-n1587094

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

It is unfortunate that the states ever ALLOWED the federal government to meddle in affairs that were originally meant to be handled by the states according to our Constitution. Because some politicians in state governments didn't want to make some "unpopular" decisions (that may have hurt their political careers) they passed a lot of the decisions to the Feds and over the years the Feds have been passing laws and rules and regulations they were never meant to be involved in. By being "politically afraid" to make some of these decisions, they have unwittingly given the Federal Government more power then they were EVER meant to have! Now, the Feds think they are the "be-all" and end-all" to every political decision that has to be resolved. This hold true for the so-called "Supreme Court" as well.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I have to agree about most of what you say as it is so easy to see it happening. However, when the Supreme Court is asked to determine constitutionality of anything they are doing just what the Constitution says they should do. They are the arbiter of what is constitutional and what is nor, according to the Constitution.

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

I understand what you're saying and you're right as far as it goes. What I'm talking about is when some of these Supreme Court judges that let their own political views influence their decisions. It's happened in the past and I'm sure it'll happen again. Lincoln warned, referring to the Dred Scott decision, that if government policy became "irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."
The Supreme Court has been criticized for giving the federal government too much power to interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the Commerce Clause by upholding regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly interfering with interstate commerce. For example, the Commerce Clause was used by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Endangered Species Act, thus protecting six endemic species of insect near Austin, Texas, despite the fact that the insects had no commercial value and did not travel across state lines; the Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment in 2005.[171] Chief Justice John Marshall asserted Congress's power over interstate commerce was "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution."[172] Justice Alito said congressional authority under the Commerce Clause is "quite broad."

The more power the Supreme Court is given, the less the states will make "unpopular" decisions on their own. At least this is my opinion (may be right, may be wrong).

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

I certainly don't disagree with you about what has been done but Andrew Jackson once said they made their decision now lets see them enforce it. That worked quite well but most of the time since that time Presidents have made sure that they have people on the Court who agree with them. When FDR failed to get the court to go along him he tried to increase the size of the court through amendment and proved just what he was trying to do.