Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on December 13, 2010, 10:33:29 AM
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rule-obamacare-today (http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rule-obamacare-today)
Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.
Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Hudson's eagerly awaited decision invalidates the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a federal fine. Hudson's decision is the first striking down part of the controversial legislation.
"It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance," wrote Hudson who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. "An enactment that exceeds the power of Congress to adopt adversely affects everyone in every application."
The Obama administration is likely to appeal Monday's ruling to the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. It is widely expected that no matter the outcome before that court, the case will ultimately go before the Supreme Court, perhaps by this time next year.
-
Can't wait for this abortion to go away.
-
Anyone and everyone w a clue to reality knmows the mandate provision alone should deep six this collage of crap on the spot.
-
BamaCare support at new lows. must be everyone getting theircollosal rate increases when they were promised rate DECREASES.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/12/new-low-in-support-for-health-care-reform.html
-
Did any federal judge ever rule any part of social security or medicare unconstitutional?
-
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT
The Corner
Cantor Calls for Direct Appeal to Supreme Court
By Daniel Foster
Posted on December 13, 2010 1:25 PM From a statement by incoming House majority whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.):
“Today’s ruling is a clear affirmation that President Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional. The efforts of Governor McDonnell and Attorney General Cuccinelli have raised legitimate concerns and ensured that the people of the Commonwealth will have their rights protected against this unconstitutional law. Ultimately, we must ensure that no American will be forced by the federal government to purchase health insurance they may not need, want, or be able to afford.
“To ensure an expedited process moving forward, I call on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to join Attorney General Cuccinelli in requesting that this case be sent directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this challenging environment, we must not burden our states, employers, and families with the costs and uncertainty created by this unconstitutional law, and we must take all steps to resolve this issue immediately.
Cantor also promised to pass “a clean repeal of ObamaCare” once the Republicans take over the House in January.
PERMALINK
-
Did any federal judge ever rule any part of social security or medicare unconstitutional?
Are you playing ignorant on purpose 240?
-
Are you playing ignorant on purpose 240?
??? I'm against the bill. You know that dude.
But i'm wondering what this legal is like, compared to what legal blows the other 2 HUGE social mgmt systems received.
If social security and medicare weatherd hundreds of legal setbacks and persevered, I'm not optimistic they can stop this one.
-
The issue is
"WHETHER THE GOVT CAN FORCE (MANDATE) YOU TO PURCHASE A PRIVATE PRODUCT OR SERVICE FROM A COPORATION AS A RESULT OF MERE LIVING AND EXISTENCE"
The answer is clearly no, and we said so millions of times to you the jackasses supporting this monstrosity. They commonly used the bogus argument of auto insurance, but that fails miserably for a myriad of reasons, that being, you are not mandated bylaw to own a car or drive.
As for SS and Medicare - those are public programs people pay taxes for. Huge difference.
-
which getbiggers were the jackasses that supported the bill, 33?
-
As for SS and Medicare - those are public programs people pay taxes for. Huge difference.
I see. So no tax dollars will be used to pay for obamacare?
-
which getbiggers were the jackasses that supported the bill, 33?
Go back to the day that mess was passed and look it up.
-
I see. So no tax dollars will be used to pay for obamacare?
Some do, some don't. This whole thing is a constitutional mess and clearly a joke.
240 - you know I railed on this issue endlessly.
-
-
Did any federal judge ever rule any part of social security or medicare unconstitutional?
I guess you missed it on the other thread.
It might be somewhat of a valid comparison if everyone was required to use Medicare or Medicaid.
-
I guess you missed it on the other thread.
apples and oranges completely.
-
Federal Court Declares ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
Posted by Michael F. Cannon
www.cato.org
ObamaCare has always hung by an absurdity. ObamaCare supporters claim that the Constitution’s words “Congress shall have the Power…To regulate Commerce…among the several States” somehow give Congress the power to compel Americans to engage in commerce. This ruling exposes that absurdity, and exposes as desperate political spin the Obama administration’s claims that these lawsuits are frivolous.
This ruling’s shortcoming is that it did not overturn the entire law. Anyone familiar with ObamaCare knows that Congress would not have approved any of its major provisions absent the individual mandate. The compulsion contained in the individual mandate was the main reason that most Democrats voted in favor of the law. Yet the law still passed Congress by the narrowest of all margins — by one vote, in the dead of night, on Christmas Eve — and required Herculean legislative maneuvering to overcome nine months of solid public opposition. The fact that Congress did not provide for a “severability clause” indicates that lawmakers viewed the law as one measure.
Despite that shortcoming, this ruling threatens not just the individual mandate, but the entire edifice of ObamaCare. The centerpiece of ObamaCare is a three-legged stool, comprised of the individual mandate, the government price controls that compress health insurance premiums, and the massive new subsidies to help Americans comply with the mandate. Knock out any of those three legs, and whole endeavor falls.
Moreover, the individual mandate is not the law’s only unconstitutional provision.
These lawsuits and the continuing legislative debate over ObamaCare are about more than health care. They are about whether the United States has a government of specifically enumerated powers, or whether the Constitution grants the federal government the power to do whatever the politicians please, subject only to a few specifically enumerated restraints. This ruling has pulled America back from that precipice.
Michael F. Cannon • December 13, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Government and Politics; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Tags: Congress, enumerated powers, government price controls, health insurance, health insurance premiums, individual mandate, mandate, Obamacare, subsidies
Share/Bookmark
-
The issue is
"WHETHER THE GOVT CAN FORCE (MANDATE) YOU TO PURCHASE A PRIVATE PRODUCT OR SERVICE FROM A COPORATION AS A RESULT OF MERE LIVING AND EXISTENCE"
The answer is clearly no, and we said so millions of times to you the jackasses supporting this monstrosity. They commonly used the bogus argument of auto insurance, but that fails miserably for a myriad of reasons, that being, you are not mandated bylaw to own a car or drive.
As for SS and Medicare - those are public programs people pay taxes for. Huge difference.
I am glad this part of the bill was ruled unconstitutional.
Now with that said, YOU have no qualms whatsoever about having the government FORCE YOU into buying a private product. If I recall you wholeheartedly support the mandatory purchasing of Auto Insurance, a private industry product. I don`t support it whatsoever since I do not want the government forcing me to buy ANYTHING from the private sector.
-
I am glad this part of the bill was ruled unconstitutional.
Now with that said, YOU have no qualms whatsoever about having the government FORCE YOU into buying a private product. If I recall you wholeheartedly support the mandatory purchasing of Auto Insurance. I don`t support it whatsoever since I do not want the government forcing me to buy ANYTHING from the private sector.
I'm QUITE sure that 33386 doesnt support the govt requiring ppl to purchase auto insurance.
-
Some do, some don't. This whole thing is a constitutional mess and clearly a joke.
240 - you know I railed on this issue endlessly.
You rally the issue of obama tying his shoe differently than you do ::)
-
I am glad this part of the bill was ruled unconstitutional.
Now with that said, YOU have no qualms whatsoever about having the government FORCE YOU into buying a private product. If I recall you wholeheartedly support the mandatory purchasing of Auto Insurance, a private industry product. I don`t support it whatsoever since I do not want the government forcing me to buy ANYTHING from the private sector.
Please explain how the government forces you into buying auto insurance and how they FINE EVERYONE if they don't buy one. Let me know the next time an IRS agent bills you for a lapse in your auto insurance.
So now driving and having health care are BOTH privileges.
-
Please explain how the government forces you into buying auto insurance and how they FINE EVERYONE if they don't buy one. Let me know the next time an IRS agent bills you for a lapse in your auto insurance.
So now driving and having health care are BOTH privileges.
You go to jail or get a ticket or get your car towed if you are caught driving with no insurance.
-
I am glad this part of the bill was ruled unconstitutional.
Now with that said, YOU have no qualms whatsoever about having the government FORCE YOU into buying a private product. If I recall you wholeheartedly support the mandatory purchasing of Auto Insurance, a private industry product. I don`t support it whatsoever since I do not want the government forcing me to buy ANYTHING from the private sector.
I did not have that argument with you, only that that there is a huge difference between obamacare and auto insurance.
-
I'm QUITE sure that 33386 doesnt support the govt requiring ppl to purchase auto insurance.
Auto insurance is required by the state not federal law.
As for the Medicad and Medicare.
these are both administered by the state.
If Obamacare went through individual states, like romneycare in Mass then it wouldn't be illegal.
Share of funds for programs isn't illegal as the constitution has allowed joint funding of programs.
The constitution does forbid the federal government from mandating laws that affect states.
-
Auto insurance is required by the state not federal law.
As for the Medicad and Medicare.
these are both administered by the state.
If Obamacare went through individual states, like romneycare in Mass then it wouldn't be illegal.
Share of funds for programs isn't illegal as the constitution has allowed joint funding of programs.
The constitution does forbid the federal government from mandating laws that affect states.
Not only that, but the government doesn't force you to buy a car.
-
Not only that, but the government doesn't force you to buy a car.
People supporting bamacare were doing so out of partisan politics to support bama over reality.
It has always been a collosal mess of chaos both on legal terms as well as logistical terms.
I will probably throw a party when this is repealed and sent into the trash.
-
Obamacare Individual Mandate Struck Down--A signal victory for constitutional government.
Pajamas Media ^ | December 13, 2010 | Clarice Feldman
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____________________
Virginia Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled today that the individual mandate in Obama care and all the provisions in that Act, which relate to it are unconstitutional. The judge’s ruling is posted here, but here are two of the key excerpts:
Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers.[p.21]
[...]
It is clear from the text of Section 1501 that the underlying regulatory scheme was conceived as an exercise of Commerce Clause powers. This is supported by specific factual findings purporting to demonstrate the effect of the health care scheme on interstate commerce. In order for the noncompliance penalty component to survive constitutional challenge, it must serve to effectuate a valid exercise of an enumerated power-here the Commerce Clause. [at p. 36]
In doing so, Judge Hudson rejected the Administration’s claims that Congress has the authority to regulate decisions not to buy insurance coverage, and that the mandate which it had originally asserted was a penalty not a tax,was indeed, a tax.
A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.
The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance-or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage-it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution confers upon Congress only discrete enumerated governmental powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. See U.S. Canst. amend. X; Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 919, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 2376-77 (1997). [at p. 37, emphasis supplied]
On careful review, this Court must conclude that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision-exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power. [at p. 38]
The latter defense was, as the Court noted, a clear after the fact Hail Mary play the Administration tried when it was clear that the Commerce Clause might not be sufficient to cover this legislative overreach.
Because the case was decided on motions for summary judgment there was no testimony, no expert witnesses, and no detailed discussion of more than a few of the 400 provisions in the act, most of which relate to other matters. Further the haste with which it was enacted made it impossible for the Court to determine on the record how much of the remaining law was dependent on Section 1501. Therefore, relying on sound constitutional law, the judge declined to issue an injunction of the act because the mandate and the provisions specifically related to it do not even go into effect until 2013.
Here’s more from Hudson’s decision today:
[T]he bill embraces far more than health care reform. It is laden with provisions and riders patently extraneous to health care-over 400 in all…. [at p. 38]
The final element of the analysis is difficult to apply in this case given the haste with which the final version of the 2,700 page bill was rushed to the floor for a Christmas Eve vote. It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed this bill, encompassing a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to heath care, without Section 1501. [at p. 39]
The Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli has indicated he believes the case will go to the Supreme Court. “I am gratified we prevailed. This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” said Cuccinelli.
I can’t argue with that assessment.
This afternoon Cuccinelli held a press conference to explain his view of the case and what the next steps would be. He said this litigation was a “long process;” that as the case was wending its way to the Supreme Court he was “happy to go with a win in round one.” He reminded those present of the many commentators who said Virginia’s suit was “frivolous” and meritless. He anticipates the Administration will seek an appeal in the fourth Circuit and plans to seek an agreement to expedite that process to avoid the costs the Commonwealth would be forced to incur as the appeal proceeds.
As for the severability issue, the Attorney General said: The Administration said in court it would abide by the Court’s declaratory outcome. In his opinion [p. 40] the Judge indicated which provisions were dependent on Section 1501’s mandate and the Court had no need to enjoin the enforcement of those provisions because it is anticipated the government would keep its word and abide by that ruling.
Rasmussen reports that Obamacare has gotten even more unpopular as time wears on:
Time doesn’t seem to be winning the new national health care law any more friends. Most voters have favored repeal of the law every week since it was passed and support for repeal has now inched up to its highest level since mid-September. Many Americans remain concerned that the law will force them to change their health insurance coverage.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 60% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law while 34% are opposed. As has been the case since the law was first passed, those who favor repeal feel more passionately than those who want to keep the law–46% Strongly Favor repeal while just 23% who are Strongly Opposed.
Twenty states are already challenging the law. In Florida, Judge Vinson has already expressed his skepticism at the Administration’s arguments. Cuccinelli indicated with the electoral changes in the various states, he anticipated one half of the states would be challenging Obama care in court. He couldn’t think of another case with such significant state opposition and neither can I. In the Florida case, Judge Vinson has refused to dismiss the case.
This was a signal victory for constitutional government with the promise of more to come.
Clarice Feldman is a retired litigation lawyer who lives in D.C. She's a news junkie addicted to the internet.
-
If the judge's strikedown holds, there goes all the "reducing the deficit" shit. Expenses such as pre-existing conditions were expected to be offset by forcing (or trying to force) just about everybody to pay into the system.
-
If the judge's strikedown holds, there goes all the "reducing the deficit" shit. Expenses such as pre-existing conditions were expected to be offset by forcing (or trying to force) just about everybody to pay into the system.
Good - Fuck obama - I hope he is up all night over this. This was an unconstitutional power grab from the start and the arrogance with which they shoved this treasonous piece of shit down everyones' throat will finally be smacked down.
-
FLASHBACK: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'
CNSNews.com originally published this story in which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the question of whether Obamacare was constitutional on Oct. 22, 2009.
Monday, December 13, 2010
By Matt Cover
________________________ ________________________
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 30, 2009, to discuss health care.(AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)
(CNSNews.com) - When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance--a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill--Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi's press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?"
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am."
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
Currently, each of the five health care overhaul proposals being considered in Congress would command every American adult to buy health insurance. Any person defying this mandate would be required to pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.
In 1994, when the health care reform plan then being advanced by President Clinton called for mandating that all Americans buy health insurance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office studied the issue and concluded:
“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”
Later on Thursday, CNSNews.com followed up on the question, e-mailing written queries for the speaker to her Spokesman Elshami.
“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker's office.
“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?”
Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a Sept. 16 press release from the Speaker’s office entitled, “Health Insurance Reform, Daily Mythbuster: ‘Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform.’” The press release states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”
The release further states: “On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”
________________________ __________
HA HA HA HA - that nasty pig is done.
-
People supporting bamacare were doing so out of partisan politics to support bama over reality.
It has always been a collosal mess of chaos both on legal terms as well as logistical terms.
I will probably throw a party when this is repealed and sent into the trash.
Can i come to the party? I'll bring the chicks ;D..
Two for me, and one for you..Socialism works in this case :D
-
Sure - how about stamford ct? We can meet half way? Crab shell?
-
Sure - how about stamford ct? We can meet half way? Crab shell?
Sounds good to me...Hopefully, you don't have a problem with Curvy busty women?
Exactly what do we expect to follow with this ruling?
-
Big ass and big tits is my game.
-
Big ass and big tits....
Hey, how do I get an invite to this party?
-
Ken Cuccinelli: VICTORY - Follow up and Discussion of Ruling
Cuccinelli.com ^ | 13 December 2010 | Ken Cuccinelli
As I told you earlier today, Virginia won the first round of the constitutional fight over the federal health care law. I also told you I'd get back to you with more details later in the day, and I'm keeping my promise.
I will tell you up front that I will also go into still more detail later this week - when time allows.
Arguments and Outcomes
There were two basic arguments in this case.
First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance.
The judge ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel you to buy health insurance as part of its attempt to regulate the entire field of health care and health insurance. Thus, Virginia won this argument.
Second, the federal government advanced a 'fallback' argument in case it lost on its commerce clause argument. The feds' fallback argument was that the financial penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government mandated health insurance is a tax.
This may sound like an odd argument from a political standpoint - usually they say everything is NOT a tax (in fact, they argued the penalty was not a tax while they were trying to get the bill passed); however, they changed position after the bill became law to try and save the bill. What they were trying to do was to get the courts to agree that because the penalty would presumably raise some revenue, it was therefore a 'tax' under the taxing and spending for the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.
No judge in the country has bought this argument, and Judge Hudson was no exception. He ruled that the taxing power of Congress does not save the bill, because the penalty for not buying the mandated health insurance is not a tax.
The federal government only had to win on either of these two arguments, while Virginia needed to win both to prevail, and we won both!
What's Next?
Certainly the federal government will appeal their loss in the district court to the 4th circuit court of appeals within the next 30 days. And whichever side loses in the 4th circuit will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. And no one has any serious doubts that ultimately the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
That could take approximately (very rough approximation) two years. We are discussing with the Department of Justice accelerating the case, and those discussions have been very cordial thus far. More on that later.
Conclusion
Today is a great day for the Constitution. Today the Constitution has been protected from the federal government, and remember, an important reason for the constitution in the first place was to limit the power of the federal government.
Today is also a day of a small degree of vindication. When we first filed suit, the screeching of the liberals was deafening. Everything from accusing us of playing politics instead of practicing law, to filing what they called a 'frivolous' lawsuit.
I want you to know, that our team makes decisions based on the Constitution and the laws. Period. We deal with the consequences of our decisions separately, but first and foremost we have been and will continue to be true to the Constitution and laws of the United States and Virginia, regardless of whether it's easy or hard in any particular case.
Thank you for your continuing support!
Sincerely,
Ken Cuccinelli, II Attorney General of Virginia
Official Decision of Healthcare Lawsuit PDF, 42 pages
________________________ _________
Cooch is really good and has a great career ahead of him.
-
ObamaCare Loses in Court [ WSJ Editorial ]
Wall St Journal ^ | dec 14, 2010 | editorial
Only a few months ago, the White House and its allies on the legal left dismissed the constitutional challenges to ObamaCare as frivolous, futile and politically motived. So much for that. Yesterday, a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled that the health law breaches the Constitution's limits on government power.
In a careful 42-page ruling, Judge Henry Hudson declared that ObamaCare's core enforcement mechanism known as the individual mandate—the regulation that requires everyone to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty—exceeds Congress's authority to regulate the lives of Americans.
"The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision [the individual mandate] would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," Judge Hudson writes. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
-
You go to jail or get a ticket or get your car towed if you are caught driving with no insurance.
NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!
thats the difference...
-
This is another example of why I completely detest obama and this admn. Everyone with a clue knew that the mandate is bizarre, unconstituional, and tyrannical.
-
Cucccinelli: Individual Mandate "Unconstitutional Exercise Of Power"
"If the government can do this, what can't they do? If the federal government has this power, federalism is dead, because there's no separate arena of authority -- no separate sphere of authority for states [that are] separate and apart from the government. If they can order you to buy a product and penalize you if you don't, then they can can more or less achieve any goal that they want and of course the founders would be appalled by that," Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said.
Cuccinelli talks about checks and balances. "The vertical check of power put in place by the founders is what we call 'federalism.' It is a check between the federal and state governments and right here, as the Attorney General representing Virginia, I am doing exactly what the founding fathers had in mind for states," Cuccinelli said.
(source: Mark Levin Show, 12/13)
-
JSPerry00 at 9:42 PM December 13, 2010
http://discussions.chicagotribune.com/20/chinews/ct-edit-health-20101213/10
According to Trib editors, the federal government should have the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance because "...each person should take responsibility for his or her own health care bills rather than impose the burden on others."
I agree. Now, how about a federal law that requires everyoine to own a car so the rest of us don't have to pay to provide public transportation? Or a law that forces people to purchase books or at least a Kindle so taxpayers don't have to support public libraries? Or that parents are financially responsible for their wayward children so that law-abiding citizens aren't forced to pay for police, courts and prisons?
The Constitution gives us the right to vote, but it doesn't give the federal government the power to require us to actually vote. Tell me, why is mandatory health insurance different?
________________________ ________________________ _______________
Good post.
-
Remember this lie?
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rule-obamacare-today (http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rule-obamacare-today)
Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.
Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Hudson's eagerly awaited decision invalidates the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a federal fine. Hudson's decision is the first striking down part of the controversial legislation.
"It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance," wrote Hudson who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. "An enactment that exceeds the power of Congress to adopt adversely affects everyone in every application."
The Obama administration is likely to appeal Monday's ruling to the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. It is widely expected that no matter the outcome before that court, the case will ultimately go before the Supreme Court, perhaps by this time next year.
One of the worst Bills ever signed into Law.
Obamacare should be thrown in the garbage, and it looks like this Judge took the first step in doing so.
-
Remember this lie?
To many lies to remember at this point..
-
PLEASE PLEASE PLASE PLEASE - 240 - TEAM KP DEFEND THIS LIE AND DECEPTION
-
Pa. federal judge rules against insurance mandate
By Chris Mondics
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
President Obama's plan to require individual Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty exceeds the powers granted both the president and Congress by the Constitution, a federal district court judge ruled Tuesday in Harrisburg
Federal District Judge Christopher C. Connor said the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce does not give it the power to compel individual citizens to purchase products against their will.
"The nation undoubtably faces a health-care crisis," Conner said. "Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant.
“The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers,” Conner continued, “and Congress' efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers."
The lawsuit was brought by a married couple in York County who sued Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is overseeing the health-care plan, to overturn the law. The couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman and her husband, Gregory Bachman, said they had dropped their own health coverage because it exceeded the cost of their mortgage payments.
They said they preferred to pay for their health care out of pocket.
However, Conner rejected an argument by the couple that the mandate is "disastrous to this nation's future, such as the Bachmans' prediction of America evolving into a socialist state. These suggestions of cataclysmic results ... are both unproductive and unpersuasive."
While most of the massive law can remain intact, Conner said, certain provisions are linked to the health insurance requirement and must also be struck down. Those provisions are designed to guarantee that insurance companies cannot discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions.
Their complaint is one of 30 different lawsuits in various federal jurisdictions around the country challenging Obama's health-care plan, which became law in 2010.
The Supreme Court is expected to eventually take up the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article contains information from the Associated Press.
Find this article at:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20110913_ap_pafederaljudgerulesagainstinsurancemandate
-
For you lawyers on here, how much more time will it take to get to the SC?