You're watching...
Judge Andrew Napolitano on how Congress is attempting to find a way to strike down Obamacare, even after the law was largely upheld by the Supreme Cou...
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
News.
At the back here behind -- house is debating legislation that would completely repeal the president's health care lump in those Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional.
Of course the president said he would veto -- repealed but there's still -- Republicans to take down a lump.
Joining us thankfully to explain it all I knew Tina -- analyze judge in -- -- down.
Texas taking the lead on this not.
All right there there is for for those of us who were gloomy and do me about the court upholding right that the lion's share of the statute.
There is an Achilles -- to it.
The whole purpose of the statute according to the president and it's supporters night was to provide health care for everyone in the United States of America.
One of the keys to that was the state health insurance exchanges right basically expanding Medicaid.
For people who can't get health insurance anywhere else right.
It would be paid 90% by the federal government 10% -- the states that the numbers fluctuate that's a general.
Ration.
That's the part that was declared unconstitutional.
By the Supreme Court because the congress when it ordered the states to set up these exchanges -- said.
-- a mop if you don't we not only one not in the in the 90% on this we're hold back the other Medicaid funds that we -- The court said congress cannot threaten the states with such financial devastation has to impair their sovereignty of states so Governor Perry.
Is absolutely correct.
When he says it is lawful for Texas not to set up the exchange so is Governor Christie so the governor of Florida so with the governor of Michigan so what happens -- that's the 64000.
Dollar question if the whole purpose of the statute.
Was to provide health care for those who can't get elsewhere there -- seventeen million people.
Who were led to believe they could go to these exchange right it will exist in New York.
There's a democratic governor and a democratic legislature want it.
But in the vast majority of the country.
The statute was challenged by 26 states from these exchanges will not exist who paid for them the federal government which means taxpayers.
Okay.
If the if the house has to appropriate.
Funds for these exchanges right refuses to do so.
I don't they -- not exist so this exercise in the house the what appears just that political battle doing speaker Boehner.
And minority leader Pelosi yes real teeth do it.
Because the president after Election Day whether he wins or loses its gonna come to the house saying giving the money -- need to fund the exchanges and this house will say.
-- -- Interesting but now what happens if there is -- change along the way we have an election coming up anything can happen well it if Mitt Romney has elected president.
He has a lot of discretion as to how to enforce laws let's say that -- is like the president and the Democrats control.
Both -- -- -- right can he do all right a lot.
Because that's a lot of discretion and the statute for example.
The IRS is in the Treasury Department.
They secretary of the treasury is appointed by the president he could basically say.
You know what those things that John Roberts -- -- taxes there really penalties I don't feel like penalizing people in a recession so we're not gonna collect them.
There's a lot of discretion of the president -- Let's have a check it -- tell different ways this could play out Tracy we just okay and you are you know -- menu did in it to goodwill.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
