Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Let me know how you see this playing out.
1 posted on 03/18/2010 5:33:02 PM PDT by Tuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Tuxedo
In my opinion...any effort to throw the “health care” bill out based on the unconstitutional “deem” process should also include bringing up the congressmen up for charges of treason. I'm serious...not hyperbole
2 posted on 03/18/2010 5:37:36 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Obama has lost or not saved over 4 million jobs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tuxedo
A QUESTION FOR YOU: If the courts start deciding, in various states, that the provision requiring people to buy insurance is unconstitutional, how will that affect Obamacare as a whole? Isn't that a core assumption of the whole bill?
5 posted on 03/18/2010 5:44:48 PM PDT by MrChips (MrChips)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tuxedo

Perhaps the “cannot be repealed” part has to be repealed first?


6 posted on 03/18/2010 5:45:25 PM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tuxedo

Nice summary.


12 posted on 03/18/2010 5:51:17 PM PDT by craigster_nc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


13 posted on 03/18/2010 5:51:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://themagicnegro.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tuxedo

The more states that jump on the nullification band wagon the more power it puts in the states hands. We have three as of now..or nearly three. If another four or five get on board it will be very hard for the SCOTUS to ignor.

GET YOUR STATE TO VOTE FOR NULLIFICATION.

Ok, then what happens? The feds will try to force those states back in line.

Question. Of you who are vets on here. Do you think that those in the military would fire upon citizens of the US?


19 posted on 03/18/2010 5:54:27 PM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tuxedo

Three possible constitutional challenges:

1. All bills that raise revenue - even one penny [no ifs, ors, buts, except fors, etc.] MUST originate in the HOUSE. This bill produces revenue to the government and originated in the Senate.

2. Every Bill shall have passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens extended this to mean passing the same bill WITH the EXACT SAME text. The “Slaughter Rule” adds language.

3. In ALL cases, the votes shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. The House doesn’t want to do this ...

United States Constitution:
Article I:
Section 7: Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

” ... All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill ...”


25 posted on 03/18/2010 6:12:59 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tuxedo
Your alternatives are correct as far as they go. But the first challenge is to throw out the entire law on the grounds that it was not constitutionally passed. See the second link, below.

Congressman Billybob

Don't Tread On Me (9/12 photo and poster"

""When Congress Cheats on Its Rules'"

26 posted on 03/18/2010 6:15:07 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tuxedo
I would suppose the first challenge would be the Constitutionality of requiring Citizens to purchase a service violates the Commerce Clause

There is existing precedence from a 1950's case (that I cannot recall the name of right) now where the US Supreme Court held that a citizen may not be compelled by the government to enter into a private contract (e.g. enter into a contract with a Health Insurance company). That jibes with the commercial code as I understand it (IANAL) and the Supremes are really big on Stare Decisis so I'll wager that requirement gets tossed pretty quickly.

However, my big fear is that they understand this and have planned for it and will then use that as an excuse to set up single payer government system that we can be forced to deal with.

34 posted on 03/18/2010 6:29:42 PM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Tuxedo

Placing trust in:
1. President
2. Congress
3. Courts and/or
4. State politicians

makes as much sense as swimming in horse manure. In both cases, you covered with s#!t.


40 posted on 03/18/2010 6:54:51 PM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson