Democrat judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

[Taco John]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61218.html

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that the health care reform law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy insurance is unconstitutional, a striking blow to the legislation that increases the odds the Supreme Court will choose to review the law.

[Spider]

then so long obamacare , i wonder y they didnt do this with car insurance

[ant1999e]

then so long obamacare , i wonder y they didnt do this with car insurance

U don't have to have a car thus don't have to have car insurance but as long as you are alive, you would be forced to have health insurance.

[peacepipe]

the ruled the mandate portion of the HCR unconstitutional but that the rest of it was fine.

[ant1999e]

the ruled the mandate portion of the HCR unconstitutional but that the rest of it was fine.

And the mandate was pretty much the foundation of Obama care.

[Arkie]

then so long obamacare , i wonder y they didnt do this with car insurance

If you choose the priviledge to operate one, then you have to get the insurance that covers the hazard to society, but you don't have to get the full coverage that protects yourself (like health insurance)

[Popcorn Sutton]

If you choose the priviledge to operate one, then you have to get the insurance that covers the hazard to society, but you don't have to get the full coverage that protects yourself (like health insurance)

Agreed. You cannot draw the parallel with car insurance.

[Tombstone RJ]

bwahahaha!!

Hey president, why don't you break up the health insurance cartel and allow insurance companies to provide coverage across state lines?

This one simple step will drop the price of health insurance significantly. Why doesn't the president do this? WHY?

Seriously, you have to wonder what the hell is going on in the District of Corruption.

[DenverBrit]

bwahahaha!!

Hey president, why don't you break up the health insurance cartel and allow insurance companies to provide coverage across state lines?

This one simple step will drop the price of health insurance significantly. Why doesn't the president do this? WHY?

Seriously, you have to wonder what the hell is going on in the District of Corruption.

It seems that both parties agree that interstate would be the way to go, but as usual, can't agree 'how.'

Let Health Insurance Cross State Lines, Some Say

As Republicans and Democrats claim to be searching for common ground in the health care debate, one idea that lawmakers on both sides seem to agree on is that health insurance should be sold across state lines.

Republicans like Representative John Shadegg of Arizona have long called for this change, saying it would increase competition among health insurers and provide consumers with a greater array of choices.

The Democrats’ health care bills, adopted late last year by the House and Senate, each contain provisions aimed at a similar goal. The bills allow states to form “compacts” among themselves by which insurance policies issued in one could be sold in the others.

But Republicans and Democrats fiercely disagree over how to go about allowing such sales, and some independent health care experts warn that the idea may be more appealing in theory than in practice, and that it might even raise rather than lower costs.

more......http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/let-health-insurance-cross-state-lines-some-say/

[Tombstone RJ]

It seems that both parties agree that interstate would be the way to go, but as usual, can't agree 'how.'

Let Health Insurance Cross State Lines, Some Say



more......http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/let-health-insurance-cross-state-lines-some-say/

This is where "leadership" from the Whitehouse comes into play. This is why Obama fails.

Instead of telling the GOP and Dems to "make it work" so that insurance can cross state lines, he lets the health insurance cartel write Obamacare.

Complete joke. Complete fail.

[DenverBrit]

This is where "leadership" from the Whitehouse comes into play. This is why Obama fails.

Instead of telling the GOP and Dems to "make it work" so that insurance can cross state lines, he lets the health insurance cartel write Obamacare.

Complete joke. Complete fail.

No disagreement here. Whatever it takes to bring down the inflated costs.

[Play2win]

Agreed. You cannot draw the parallel with car insurance.

There are many places where ownership of a automobile and living is as close to necessity as there is.

[Meck77]

Good. Obama is sinking quickly. The sooner he leaves the sooner we can start cleaning up the damage. Obama has pulled a McD on America. It's going to take some time to heal.

[ant1999e]

There are many places where ownership of a automobile and living is as close to necessity as there is.

Nice try. :bs:

[Taco John]

Good. Obama is sinking quickly. The sooner he leaves the sooner we can start cleaning up the damage. Obama has pulled a McD on America. It's going to take some time to heal.


Hilarious!

[mhgaffney]

Good. Obama is sinking quickly. The sooner he leaves the sooner we can start cleaning up the damage. Obama has pulled a McD on America. It's going to take some time to heal.

You are kidding, right?

As long as Wall Street rules this country -- there will be no cleaning up the damage -- only more of the same.

Boggles the mind that some of you think a Republican administration will fix what ails this country. Ain't gonna happen.

[mhgaffney]

Taco, you are dreaming.

I went to a Tea Party rally last year. The speakers had been flown in a commuter jet -- probably paid for by thew Koch bros.

I talked with some of the organizers. They were a very naive bunch -- and in my opinion did not understand that they were being used.

There was no awareness that Wall Street was/is the enemy.

Things will get worse.

[W*GS]

Who runs Wall Street, gaffe?

Jews, right?

[Meck77]

You are kidding, right?

As long as Wall Street rules this country -- there will be no cleaning up the damage -- only more of the same.

Boggles the mind that some of you think a Republican administration will fix what ails this country. Ain't gonna happen.

Boggles my mind that you think what you say in here will do a damn bit of difference in the real world.

My boy Ron is making some waves. Even has Newt talking about auditing the fed now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76LFwMnq6bE&feature=youtu.be

Right around the 13:30 mark.

[Rigs11]

Hey teabagger bachmann won the straw polls.you voting for crazy Taco?Ha!

[Arkie]

Boggles my mind that you think what you say in here will do a damn bit of difference in the real world.

My boy Ron is making some waves. Even has Newt talking about auditing the fed now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76LFwMnq6bE&feature=youtu.be

Right around the 13:30 mark.

Paul brought up something completely ignored by all the other politicians arguing over the debt--the trillions we owe the Fed (but they won't let us audit them)

He said, “We owe the Fed $1.6 trillion in treasury bills. Where’d they get the money to buy it? They create it out of thin air. So we pay them interest. Now that’s on our books. So we literally, with legislation, could wipe $1.6 trillion off. That’s not a solution to the monetary problem or our spending problems, but it would give you a year to work this out and we wouldn’t have had any of that debate going on. Those were all scare tactics to try to scare people.”

[Tombstone RJ]

Paul brought up something completely ignored by all the other politicians arguing over the debt--the trillions we owe the Fed (but they won't let us audit them)

He said, “We owe the Fed $1.6 trillion in treasury bills. Where’d they get the money to buy it? They create it out of thin air. So we pay them interest. Now that’s on our books. So we literally, with legislation, could wipe $1.6 trillion off. That’s not a solution to the monetary problem or our spending problems, but it would give you a year to work this out and we wouldn’t have had any of that debate going on. Those were all scare tactics to try to scare people.”

Ron Paul, pointing out the corruption of the fed gov and being ignored... the presidency needs Paul. period.

[Popcorn Sutton]

There are many places where ownership of a automobile and living is as close to necessity as there is.

...and you only need insurance to cover what happens to others in the event of an accident. If you choose, you can get liability only and leave yourself essentially uninsured.

[Meck77]

Ron Paul, pointing out the corruption of the fed gov and being ignored... the presidency needs Paul. period.

It's mind blowing isn't. The guy is in the trenches every damn day virtually fighting on his own while every other congressman and women continue to hide the truth from the American people. Obama included.

More and more people are becoming aware.

http://victorystore00.stores.yahoo.net/ronpa18pr0si.html

I just ordered $900 worth of signs today. That's 300 signs that myself and other volunteers will be putting up periodically. I encourage other supporters to do the same. I'm making a big ass contribution to his campaign also.

I personally owe ron a favor and am returning it.

[W*GS]

I just ordered $900 worth of signs today. That's 300 signs that myself and other volunteers will be putting up periodically. I encourage other supporters to do the same. I'm making a big ass contribution to his campaign also.

You're wasting your money.

[Tombstone RJ]

You're wasting your money.

you're wasting everyone's time.

[W*GS]

you're wasting everyone's time.

Poor dear. Don't read my bits of wit.

[Arkie]

You're wasting your money.

Not if he's promoting less government. That's been getting more popular lately. ;)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ron Paul, pointing out the corruption of the fed gov and being ignored... the presidency needs Paul. period.

Ron Paul is the future of American politics.

He may not live to see it, but the country is going to recoil from the mass socialist identity politics movement and slide more and more toward the libertarian ideology.

Libertarianism is really the next ideological revolution in this country because it satisfies many aspects of both modern liberalism and conservatism. It will be the grounds by which the parties can come back together after this period of polarization.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Poor dear. Don't read my bits of wit.

I would have chosen another word. Maybe even one that rhymes with "wit", but has more to do with human waste.

[AleckH]

And another appeals court has ruled Obama's Health Care law unconstitutional. Judge Christopher C. Conner said that the part requiring most Americans to buy insurance or pay a fine isn't constitutional (Judge rules provision of Obamacare unconstitutional (http://www.newsytype.com/11352-provision-obamacare-unconstitutional/)). So one judge says it is, one judge says its not, another judge says it is, another judge says it's not. Pretty sure a non partisan judge would find it is unconstitutional.

[peacepipe]

And another appeals court has ruled Obama's Health Care law unconstitutional. Judge Christopher C. Conner said that the part requiring most Americans to buy insurance or pay a fine isn't constitutional (Judge rules provision of Obamacare unconstitutional (http://www.newsytype.com/11352-provision-obamacare-unconstitutional/)). So one judge says it is, one judge says its not, another judge says it is, another judge says it's not. Pretty sure a non partisan judge would find it is constitutional.fixed it for you.

[Spider]

fixed it for you.

no you didnt ......who knows whats constitutional any more with these laws we have now ......

[Garcia Bronco]

fixed it for you.

Except it's not constitutional. The federal governemnt has no right to mandate health insurance. Further it's a tax and was not voted on by congress. It's already DOA.

[peacepipe]

Except it's not constitutional. The federal governemnt has no right to mandate health insurance. Further it's a tax and was not voted on by congress. It's already DOA.In your opinion, which carries no weight.

[peacepipe]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-antonin-scalia-may-save-the-individual-mandate/

Yesterday’s decision by Judge Roger Vinson has once again revived the ongoing legal battle over the constitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate. In that regard, it’s worth taking note that a concurring opinion by one of the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices may end up being the argument that saves Obamacare:

Lawsuits from 14 states challenging the constitutionality of the new national healthcare law face an uphill battle, largely due to a far-reaching Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California.

At issue in that case — just like in the upcoming challenges to the healthcare overhaul — was the reach of the federal government’s power.

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.

They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority “to regulate commerce.”

Even “noneconomic local activity” can come under federal regulation if it is “a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce,” Scalia wrote.

It’s worth quoting at length from Scalia’s concurrence in that case, Gonzalez v. Raich:

The authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

(…)

Our cases show that the regulation of intrastate activities may be necessary to and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce in two general circumstances. Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. See NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 36—37 (1937). That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel, supra, at 281 (surface coal mining); Katzenbach, supra, at 300 (discrimination by restaurants); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 258 (1964) (discrimination by hotels); Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219, 237 (1948) (intrastate price-fixing); Board of Trade of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 40 (1923) (activities of a local grain exchange); Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495, 517, 524—525 (1922) (intrastate transactions at stockyard). Lopez and Morrison recognized the expansive scope of Congress’s authority in this regard: “[T]he pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.” Lopez, supra, at 560; Morrison, supra, at 610 (same).

(…)

The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

Applying that reasoning to the individual mandate would give a Justice a very easy way to find something that is seemingly not authorized by the Constitution to be completely acceptable:

Legislators argued that the “individual mandate” was necessary because it would undercut the insurance market if individuals could just opt out of having health insurance. Freeloaders could wait until they were hurt in an accident or contracted a disease and then demand insurance coverage for their “preexisting condition.”

The court’s ruling in the 2005 case, Gonzales vs. Raich, “is an enormous problem” for those who contend that the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional, said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based National Senior Citizens Law Center.

“It clearly says Congress has vast regulatory authority over interstate commerce,” he said.

Some what wondered whether Scalia will be able to square a ruling against the mandate with his concurrence in Raich, but even if he can the reasoning stands as as powerful argument for a Justice like Anthony Kennedy to hang their argument on if they wished to uphold the mandate.And we’d have the most conservative “originalist” on the Court to thank for it.

Stay tuned because this is just starting to get interesting.

[cutthemdown]

then so long obamacare , i wonder y they didnt do this with car insurance

You choose to drive so you can just walk and not have insurance. While everyone forced to be alive until we aren't.

[Bronx33]

You are kidding, right?

As long as Wall Street rules this country -- there will be no cleaning up the damage -- only more of the same.

Boggles the mind that some of you think a Republican administration will fix what ails this country. Ain't gonna happen.


Both parties are responsible please pull your head out of your *** and move forward.

[Arkie]

no you didnt ......who knows whats constitutional any more with these laws we have now ......

Article X sums it up.

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.

[Spider]

Article X sums it up.

sums what up ? there is more grey matter there then my girl friend has between her legs

[Arkie]

sums what up ? there is more grey matter there then my girl friend has between her legs

The constitution is short and clearly written in layman's language.

[peacepipe]

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation): "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."<SUP id=cite_ref-Yale_University_Avalon_Project_1-0 class=reference>[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-Yale_University_Avalon_Project-1)</SUP> After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_powers).<SUP id=cite_ref-House_of_Representatives_Amendments_to_the_Constit ution_2-0 class=reference>[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-House_of_Representatives_Amendments_to_the_Constit ution-2)</SUP> However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause).
When he introduced the Tenth Amendment in Congress, James Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison) explained that many states were anxious to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary:
I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it. <SUP id=cite_ref-3 class=reference>[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-3)</SUP>
The states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights.<SUP id=cite_ref-4 class=reference>[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-4)</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-5 class=reference>[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-5)</SUP> The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication.
.

[Arkie]

The tenth amendment is supposed to prohibit the US governement from having unlimited power, but it was ignored with Obamacare and the Patriot Act as recent examples. The federal reserve, social security, and executive orders are some older examples.