Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Dec 13, 2010, 11:16 AM
    Obamacare's unconstitutional
    That's what U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said today. He said the mandate requiring people to have medical insurance exceeds all constitutional "logical limitations ".
    "Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions," Hudson wrote. "This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation" and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
    Judge in Va. strikes down federal health care law - Yahoo! News

    If one part of Obamacare goes down then the whole law is unconstitutional . There was no severability clause added to the many pages of the legislation. [normally stated as such : "notwithstanding any provision of this act being found unconstitutional, the rest of the act shall continue to be in force."]

    No doubt the Obots will appeal this decision all the way to the Supreme Court . Maybe the President is having 2nd thoughts about the way he slammed the court publicly in the SOTU message.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Dec 13, 2010, 02:34 PM
    The judge also didn't find the administration's argument that the 'penalty' for not complying was permissible under taxing authority very compelling. I reckon Obama and the Dems shouldn't have argued it wasn't a tax before they passed the law.

    By the way, support for Obamacare has hit a new low.
    twinkiedooter's Avatar
    twinkiedooter Posts: 12,172, Reputation: 1054
    Uber Member
     
    #3

    Dec 13, 2010, 07:07 PM

    I never liked it and never wanted it. It's about time that somebody stood up for the American people and said "We don't want it". I hope that Mimi and Harry Reid rot in hades for what they tried to do to this country. They weedled and dieseled their way and kept voting until they essentially bought off all the folks in Washington to pass the dang bill. Did they ever ask Mr. and Mrs. Public what they wanted? Heaven forbid that any politician would do something good for our country and welfare. It's all about them holding out their hand and taking the money proffered to them is all they care about. Vote, vote, vote until they get it "right" should be totally outlawed. Vote ONCE and be done not keep voting. Didn't anyone else think this was worse than fishy that they kept voting on this baloney or was it just me who thought they were insane to keep doing that?

    And to think of all the money wasted on those folks in Washington just to vote on something that hopefully turns out to be unconstitutional. How sad is that?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Dec 14, 2010, 07:17 AM

    No one was taking the constitutional challenges seriously . It will be interesting to see how the Fla. Case against Obamacare that is joined by about 2 dozen States proceeds . That one begins arguments tomorrow .

    The meat of the judges decision is the same one that was debated here .
    “Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” ... “In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I.

    The White House makes the false comparison with auto insurance in the WH blog :
    Today?s Health Care Court Ruling | The White House

    But the only thing required by State laws is that part that pays for the other driver's damages. Comprehensive auto coverage is optional.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #5

    Dec 14, 2010, 07:53 AM

    Hello tom:

    I don't know how the Democrats can take a good one page idea, and then write a 2400 page monstrosity to make it happen...

    We agree that the fed cannot and should not, tell us how to spend our money. Well, we Kind of agree on that. You're still all for the government interfering into our BUYING decisions, as long as it meets your approval...

    I need remind everyone that there were TWO federal judges who have said the law IS Constitutional. Besides, it shouldn't come as any surprise to you, that a Bush appointed judge in the south would rule against Obamacare.. So, don't start celebrating yet...

    It's true, the conservatives have a majority on the Supreme Court, so they'll probably quash it... But, it's only ONE PART of the law, folks. The other 2300 pages remain. Some of it ain't bad, like your insurance companies NOT being able to drop you because of a pre existing condition, fixing the doughnut hole for seniors, and your kids being able to stay on your policy till they're 26.

    So, if you want to get RID of it, you need to REPEAL it. Good luck with that.

    excon

    PS> (edited) I just read your severatibility thing... You don't think the Democrats are that dumb do you?? 2400 pages and they couldn't have said those few words??
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Dec 14, 2010, 08:06 AM

    But, it's only ONE PART of the law, folks. The other 2300 pages remain.
    In the op I said why any final ruling by SCOTUS will kill the whole thing .
    There was no severability clause added to the many pages of the legislation. [normally stated as such : "notwithstanding any provision of this act being found unconstitutional, the rest of the act shall continue to be in force."]
    2300 pages and they forgot to add that single line. Ooops

    Federal judge strikes down Obamacare mandate as unconstitutional | Washington Examiner

    The reason it wasn't added is that typically it gets added in conference committee... and as you know, the Dems gamed that... and since they passed the bill in reconciliation there must be a sunset clause... just like the Bush Tax rates .
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #7

    Dec 14, 2010, 08:17 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    2300 pages and they forgot to add that single line. ooops
    Hello again, tom:

    Yeah, I edited my comments... They forgot a single line?? Those bastards...

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Dec 18, 2010, 04:07 AM

    Elena Kagan was asked a hypothetical about a possible law requiring people to eat fruits and veggies during her confirmation hearings . She called the idea "dumb" and then went on to say that the court's role was to make sure Congress doesn't go beyond their enumerated powers.

    She conceded that the Commerce Clause has a broad interpretation .But when the individual mandate to buy coverage was challenged in court, the Obama administration argued a very broad interpretation of the clause basically saying... The Constitution gives the government the authority to regulate interstate commerce... that everything people do and don't do affects interstate commerce.Therefore the government may regulate everything and everyone.

    Kagan in contrast appears to think there are limits on how broadly the clause can be interpreted within Constitutional limits. I'm not sure she wouldn't be on the side of those that think the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Feb 1, 2011, 04:06 AM

    Judge Roger Vinson in Fla. Ruled Obamacare (the entire act ) unconstitutional yesterday.
    Here are some key passages of his decision.

    [T]his case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation, or whether it will solve or exacerbate the myriad problems in our health care system. In fact, it is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government….

    Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company…just for being alive and residing in the United States….

    It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce”…, it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place….

    I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law….

    The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be utilized to “pass laws for the accomplishment of objects” that are not within Congress’ enumerated powers….

    Having determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, and cannot be saved by application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the next question is whether it is severable from the remainder of the Act….

    [T]here are two specific facts that are particularly telling in this respect.

    First, the Act does not contain a “severability clause,” which is commonly included in legislation to provide that if any part or provision is held invalid, then the rest of the statute will not be affected….

    The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law….
    Moreover, the defendants have conceded that the Act’s health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself. The health insurance reform provisions were cited repeatedly during the health care debate, and they were instrumental in passing the Act. In speech after speech President Obama emphasized that the legislative goal was “health insurance reform” and stressed how important it was that Congress fundamentally reform how health insurance companies do business, and “protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry.” See, for example, Remarks of President Obama, The State of the Union, delivered Jan. 27, 2009. Meanwhile, the Act’s supporters in the Senate and House similarly spoke repeatedly and often of the legislative efforts as being the means to comprehensively reform the health insurance industry….

    In other words, the individual mandate is indisputably necessary to the Act’s insurance market reforms, which are, in turn, indisputably necessary to the purpose of the Act….

    I must [therefore] conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed….

    Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void….

    Judge Roger Vinson Obamacare Ruling 013111
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #10

    Feb 1, 2011, 04:38 AM
    That's great that you guys will have superlative health care access for the rich. I kind of feel bad for all those who aren't rich, y'know, like all those people that post on AMHD medical boards.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #11

    Feb 1, 2011, 05:35 AM

    Hello again,

    So, it's going to come down to Kennedy, huh? One guy?? That ain't right.

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #12

    Feb 1, 2011, 07:49 AM

    Not sure of that... Like I said already ;Kagan could surprise .

    What wasn't right was that major entitlement reform was passed without a clear consensus for it. What wasn't right was the attempt to bypass Constitutional mandates to get it done.
    They did it to themselves by manipulating the system to get around the normal procedures for passing any legislation ;let alone sea change laws.
    Do not despair . Roosevelt's 1st attempt at socialism was struck down too. He rebooted and gave us a gradual American version of Fabian socialism. One reversal isn't going to stem that 80 year trend .
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #13

    Feb 1, 2011, 07:59 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    What wasn't right was that major entitlement reform was passed without a clear concensus for it... One reversal aint going to stem that 80 year trend .
    Hello again, tom:

    If there was no clear consensus for it, then there's no clear consensus in the last election... Elections DO matter... Or, is that only when you win?

    But, you admitted as much in your last sentence... Voters want it, and voters are going to get it. This time, I think they'll choose the public option. THAT'S not unconstitutional.

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #14

    Feb 1, 2011, 08:37 AM

    If there was no clear consensus for it, then there's no clear consensus in the last election... Elections DO matter... Or, is that only when you win?
    The Republicans stomped the Dems in the 2004 elections. Are you saying then that since elections matter ,that the Dems should've shut up and allowed the Bush Social Security reforms to pass because 'elections matter ' ?

    This time the Dems could not get it passed even with a huge majority in both houses and a POTUS friendly to the act, without playing Parlimentarian tricks .
    In the 2010 elections the people spoke against the gamesmanship of the Dems .
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #15

    Feb 1, 2011, 08:46 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    The Republicans stomped the Dems in the 2004 elections. Are you saying then that since elections matter ,that the Dems should've shut up and allowed the Bush Social Security reforms to pass because 'elections matter ' ?
    Hello again, tom:

    I'm NOT saying people should shut up.. I AM saying that people shouldn't LIE about the reasons they're speaking up, by saying such things as there's no consensus for it, when there CLEARLY was.

    If YOU don't like it, then SAY you don't like it, and tell me why. But, don't tell me that you're riding in on a white horse to SAVE the republic from an administration that doesn't listen to the people... It just ain't so.

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #16

    Aug 12, 2011, 03:39 PM

    Next step to the Supremes. A 3 judge panel of the 11th Circuit Appeals Court did a split decision today. They declared the mandate requiring people to purchase insurance... the" individual mandate" ,to be unconstitutional.

    But they also over ruled the court decision that said the whole law was unconstitutional because it lacks a severability clause . They left the door open for enforcement of other provisions of the law.
    Supreme Court precedent confirms that the “ultimate determination of severability will rarely turn on the presence or absence of such a clause.” … Rather, “Congress’ silence is just that — silence — and does not raise a presumption against severability.”
    But without the added revenues from people who opt out the whole house of cards comes crashing down. It would likely bankrupt the insurance companies that the Administration is counting on. Without the mandate the law would essentially have to be scrapped and started over anyway. The net effect would be the same with or without severability .

    This ruling contradicts a different Appellate decision from the 6th Circuit in June that went in favor of the Administrations case .

    Now with conflicting opinions at the Circuit Court level over Obamacare it is very likely that SCOTUS will take up the case . The question is when??

    From the majority opinion :
    [T]he individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power. This conclusion is limited in scope. The power that Congress has wielded via the Commerce Clause for the life of this country remains undiminished. Congress may regulate commercial actors. It may forbid certain commercial activity. It may enact hundreds of new laws and federally-funded programs, as it has elected to do in this massive 975- page Act. But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.
    It cannot be denied that the individual mandate is an unprecedented exercise of congressional power. As the CBO observed, Congress ‘has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.’ CBO MANDATE MEMO, supra p.115, at 1. Never before has Congress sought to regulate commerce by compelling non-market participants to enter into commerce so that Congress may regulate them. The statutory language of the mandate is not tied to health care consumption—past, present, or in the future. Rather, the mandate is to buy insurance now and forever. The individual mandate does not wait for market entry.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #17

    Aug 12, 2011, 03:58 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    They declared the mandate requiring people to purchase insurance ...the" individual mandate" ,to be unconstitutional.
    How is that not the same for automobile insurance?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 343
    Ultra Member
     
    #18

    Aug 12, 2011, 04:32 PM

    1.you are not required to drive a car.
    2. Each state has it's own rules .There is no national requirement .
    3. Even if a State requires auto insurance it only requires liability for others injuries... it's your option if you want coverage for yourself under a more comprehensive plan.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Are child support sentences unconstitutional? [ 9 Answers ]

I was wondering if when a so called "Dead Beat Dad" is jailed for non payment of child support, if being held long enough in jail that he loses his job,home, driver's license, and more; if that is breaking a constitutional law? How do these agencies expect a man to pay support if they house him...


View more questions Search