Posted on 11/08/2011 3:13:57 PM PST by caldera599
WASHINGTON — A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law, as the Supreme Court prepares to consider this week whether to resolve conflicting rulings over the law's requirement that all Americans buy health care insurance.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the lower court's ruling that found Congress did not overstep its authority in requiring people to have insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. The requirement is the most controversial requirement of Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement and the focus of conflicting opinions from judges across the country. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Thursday during a closed meeting of the justices whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings. The suit in Washington was brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson. It claimed that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional because it forces Americans to buy a product for the rest of their lives and that it violates the religious freedom of those who choose not to have insurance because they rely on God to protect them from harm. But the court ruled that Congress had the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Precisely. If they think the OWS crowd is bad now, let's see what happens when they are mandated to buy healthcare by law.
Conservative-leaning? More like a RINO court
Nedra Pickler is back! Oh, dear.
Are they all exempt, too?
“But the court ruled that Congress had the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty.”
Can?
It is REQUIRED, moron reporter.
I guarantee even if a republican is elected and the republicans take over congress, this will not be repealed. Just my belief.
No, it will die.
No, it will die.
There are no conservative judges in the district of government employment.
Federal courts presume laws are constitutional and plaintiffs must proved otherwise.
“. . . even if it infringes on liberty.”
It is time to clean the judicial house. Congress has power to do so.
This is the second time I know of that the courts have ruled against liberty in a high profile case that impacts every citizen, and have deemed the decision so important that it must be done even though it curtailed individual liberties.
The court has ASSUMED they have power to negate the Constitution, and are doing just what the framers feared--getting way above their pay grade in assumption of power. The framers made a way to remedy that--the two other branches can do something. Was it Jackson who simply did away with half the positions?--Anyway, it is time to shed some of these people, but we have to have a strong conservative leader to do it--someone who is not old Repub establishment.
vaudine
“But the court ruled that Congress had the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty.”
I maybe going to jail. I refuse to have any more of my rights taken away.
Where is the law???
Is paying income tax voluntary???
LEARN YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!
Income taxes are voluntary according to this Reid interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg
Dario Busch: Harrell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r37Fm7paVjs&feature=related
commissioner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA&feature=related
Female commissioner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu0iSxAKxT0&feature=related
Whitey Harrell case:
The state of Illinois vs Whitey Harrell
http://www.aardvarkbusiness.net/chat/viewtopic.php?t=12502
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL,
In deliberation, the jury asked the judge for a copy of the law Harrell was being tried for breaking, but the judge would not supply it. When they found that certain evidence admitted into the record during the trial by the defense was missing, they requested it of the judge and were again denied. They acquitted Harrell on all counts. Even though the parties were in state court and the official charge was “failure to file” state income tax returns, the case was really about the legal requirement to file a federal income tax return because, like most states, Illinois’ law mandates the filing of a state income tax return if the Illinois resident is required to file a federal income tax return. Harrell’s case is cited as PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. GAYLON L. HARRELL, Case Number 97CF89 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.