Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few ...... ? Churchill
The Four Horsemen of the 0bamaclypse?
Commiecare is the tip of the jack-boot in the door...
Karma’s a bitch 0bama - you loser.
A fine is not a tax, and there is no taxable event to begin with, that is except living. Even Orwell would be shocked.
Pay back could be a bitch!
Not necessarily so. By the time it reaches the Supremes, there will probably be one or possibly two new justices, appointed by Obama.
OK........here’s the deal....fubo is a flaming commie, but he is not stupid..as a constitutional lawyer???? he knew this was going to be overruled by the supreme court...his little charade against the supreme court justices during his state of the union was planned..now when they overrule the current law, he can say they were just “getting even” and will use this to undercut and possibly stack the court in the way roosevelt tried to....just wait and see
I don’t think that there is any doubt that this will wind up before the Supreme Court and the sooner the better.
At least one of the states should raise the issue that there is a violation of the 5th amendment.
....nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,...
Requiring someone to disclose their having obtained insurance or not when there is a penalty for not having insurance would run afoul of this clause.
and
....nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;.....
The federal government in denying someone medical care is depriving someone of life and thus also runs afoul of this clause.
and
....The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures....
Medical records qualifies for papers and effects so forcing individuals to give those records over to the government is a violation of this clause.
and
...Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted....
Those that can’t afford insurance would consider forced payments for insurance an “excessive fine”.
The White House is not the government. Congress is not the government. SCOTUS is not the government. The people are the government! The three branches operate at the consent of the governed! The people will have the final say as to how they are governed and we do not consent to the unconstitutional, socialist health care agenda being rammed down our throats!
Well, that's true.
We don't need conservative justices - because a lot of what they would conserve needs to be reversed instead.
Wickard v. Filburn and Everson both have to be reversed to have any hope of restoring constitutional government - and I'm sure there are many other examples.
Unless the USSC uses the P & I clause in McDonald and eviscerates the commerce clause here, the republic is toast.
In the next three years, we will have our courts packed with socialists, and 15 million illegal immigrant voters to keep it that way.
I’m not optimistic.
If mandating people to buy health care insurance were ruled unconstitutional then I suppose Pelosi and Company would just ram single-payer down our throats
Come on! Let’s get rid of this stupid bill.
Americans are no longer a free people. Our current government is obsessed with power.
The socialists house of cards is falling around the globe. They're running out of other peoples money. They need cash, and they need it bad. Don't give it to them. Stop spending, and use your funds to get out of debt yourself. We can survive without their money, but they can't survive without ours.
Starve this beast.
I see Obama losing this case. That will be a gain for America since the bill will drive us to an economical collapse.
I’m cheering these lawsuits on, but not holding my breath for 9 people in black robes to do the right thing and shoot down this giant unfunded mandate. We have to work towards November 2010 and November 2012. Thats’ where the solution is. Repeal and replace!!!!
And what a sad day for the Constitution that was. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was one of those insane SCOTUS decisions that led to the state of affairs we have today.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few ...... ? Churchill
The Four Horsemen of the 0bamaclypse?
Not everyone agrees with that reasoning.
"It is a taxation and spending power, not an open-ended general welfare clause," said Michael W. McConnell, a Stanford law professor and former circuit court judge appointed by President George W. Bush. "And by the way, 'general' had a very specific meaning in the late 18th century - it meant nationwide in scope, which is why some of the state-specific provisions are constitutionally dubious."
Congress lawfully could enact a general tax to pay for these subsidies or it could create a tax credit for those who buy health insurance, but that would require Congress to "pay for" or budget for the subsidies in a conventional manner. The sponsors of the current bills are attempting, through the personal mandate, to keep the transfers entirely off budget or--through the gimmick of unconstitutional taxes or penalties they dub "shared responsibility payments"--make these transfers appear to be revenue-enhancing.
While not controlling, sometimes the rationale (more broadly, the intent) for an agency's act is a factor in whether or not it is unconstitutional, e.g., arbitrary and capricious. IOW, there could be a case where the agency had a lawful goal and, say, out of demonstrable necessity, had to accomplish that goal by going a certain route -- and, say, taking that route had no real downside.
Even if someone could dream up such a fact set, THIS IS NOT IT. Clearly, there is one purpose and one alone for using the "individual mandate": that is, political chicanery and budget obsfucation. This "mandate" is being used to circumvent and blather over the precise bond of political accountability between "Representative" and the "represented" that fundamentally defines our system of government under the Constitution.
In short, the "individual mandate" is being used to LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, both as to what this legislation costs and as to who is going to pay for it. (The latter because this legislation is billed as providing "insurance for all" while it operates as a direct and arbitrary transfer of wealth between citizens.) This mandate has no legitimate or appropriate legislative purpose or utility.
As I wrote on a different thread [at # 67]: about Heritage's take on this issue
The Rats have substantially complicated their legal position by their own cowardice. . . . So, it seems to me the feds are between a rock and a hard place here. It’s likely they can fairly easily win their case by arguing that the individual mandate actually is a tax with a cute name. But then they’ve got the political problem that they’d be admitting that this “free” healthcare actually is going to be funded, first, by a direct tax on individuals regardless of income.
If the feds cannot directly force the states to fund Medicaid, I'm interested to see on what basis the feds think they can force individuals to fund Medicaid through individual "purchases," not invoking the feds' power to tax.
Moreover, if states can opt out of Medicaid, maybe this gives them standing to opt out, essentially, on behalf of all citizens of the state.
Then there is this problem [at # 83]:
The 9th Cir. (San Francisco, of course) has ruled that States cannot cut Medicaid spending because that denies "equal access to healthcare to the poor." So who owns a State's budget process and budget priorities? The feds? Do the feds also directly own the wealth of a State's citizens, through a newfound power to impose individual mandates? If the above are "yes," -- if States have a limited pot of money and the federal government has the power to come in and TAKE ALL OR MOST OF IT -- do States exist in any real way except as administrative pass-throughs for the federal government?
I really hope the Obamacare lawsuits include a discussion of the implications of how the rationale of the 9th Circuit + unlimited unfunded federal mandates, even imposed directly on a state's citizens = TOTAL FEDERAL CONTROL OF A STATE'S BUDGET PRIORITIES.
In fact, Obamacare is forcing Arizona to walk back Medicaid cuts it had scheduled for this year to help stem its budget gap. Arizona wants to spend its money elsewhere. The feds are saying "TOUGH." So who owns Arizona?