Posted on 10/15/2010 5:06:53 AM PDT by truthandlife
Good news for opponents of the new healthcare law: The Supreme Court is likely to overturn key elements of it, says Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the third-ranking House Republican, The Hill reports. "It's going to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's going to decide whether or not the Constitution of the United States permits the government to order the American people to purchase goods or services, whether they want them or need them or not," says Pence, who opposes Obamacare, just like nearly all Republicans.
Mike Pence, healthcare, Obamacare, Supreme CourtAnd what will the court decide?
"I rather like our chances when this thing gets to the U.S. Supreme Court," Pence said Friday on WLS radio in Indiana. "I think there could be a narrow majority on the court that recognizes that you cannot compel the American people to purchase health insurance just as a function of being an American citizen."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Just give hospitals the right to turn away the un-insured.
I wonder if the “ruling class” is just going to ignore the lack of the severability clause.
In their haste to pass this without reading it,
they forgot to put in severability.
Severability clauses protect the rest of the law if any part of it is ruled unconstitutional.
According to the law, if any part of it is unconstitutional, and it’s not severable, the whole thing is null and void.
I doubt they’ll let that happen, though, despite what the law says.
For one, the Federal Government doesn't require auto insurance, the States do and having your insurance coverage being good across State Lines, is covered under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.
It’s the state, not the feds mandating that you buy car insurance if you drive on the public roads. If you don’t buy insurance, most states have an uninsured fee that you must pay.
Actually, they can’t mandate that you buy auto insurance—the mandate is for financial responsibility, not insurance.
That could mean no more gov't subsidy/grants/support of hospitals, turning them all into private enterprises and for-profit businesses. Of course, the way you phrased it would also mean they'd have the ability/option to go ahead and treat without insurance, so we could still have non-profit/charity hospitals.
We could compromise, and require all hospitals to treat life-threatening emergencies and then transfer them to other ones that would accept them. Wait....
Just askin ...
They only mandate that you buy insurance if you want to drive a car after you receive a gummint issued drivers license.
If you have no car, no mandate.
In the health care mandate, everyone is required to purchase, just because you are alive.
Exactly!
And this is the argument we have to have ready when the Libs come back at us.
BTW, to the other posters, I recognize the State v Fed thing.
This was actually a rhetorical quesiton ;-)
Sure they will. Just like they did when Campaign Finance Reform was brought to them... (though, they did eventually get it right, when the Gub’mint argued it could suppress books...).
Considering the fact that one does not have to have an 'exclusive' association with any of the named groups, this will be their downfall if it gets that far.
The government would be in the business of 'establishing a religion' if it mandates that you must claim only one affiliation.
People who don’t own cars or who don’t drive do not have to putchase auto insurance or pay a tax to provide it for those who do drive.
Big difference.
I can document a Native American in my family tree, about 6 generations ago.
Just tellin'.
You're right and that's why I'm reasonably optimistic. Kennedy is the justice who wrote the Court's decision in the Citizens United case, meaning he's the one the Illegal called out in the SOTU speech that criticised that case. The Obamacare case will be Kennedy's big chance to get even for that insult.
If the Supreme Court has ruled that the President does not have a line item veto power, then why does the Supreme Court think it has the power of a line item veto? If a 2200 page bill has any provision in it that it deemed to be unconstitutional, then the entire 2200 pages should be deemed invalid.
“What constitutes “Indian” (or Native American)?”
My grandmother’s grandfather was full-blood Cherokee. So am I exempt?
One program I watched yesterday, and I don’t remember which, said that taking out the required insurance portion of this bill guts the entire bill, since that is the way it is funded.
However, I don’t see how that would affect the stealth gold purchase portion, or the age 26 on parent’s insurance provision, or the pre-existing conditions provision, etc.
I’d like it all to be killed, but I tend to agree with you. Killing one provision won’t, but should, kill the entire thing.
“Killing one provision won’t, but should, kill the entire thing.”
Have you no respect for the gods, lesser in the small outland high places to the supreme temple of the gods? They can do anything with impunity and no created being can question them. They serve for life and the good is oft interred with their bones but the evil lives after.
The fly-over gods vs the supreme temple gods
Let us tear down their high places, burn their bones on the altars, and scatter their dust to the winds.
The un-deification plans of Hezekiah and Josiah updated.
It bought peace for their time.
They did not insert some sort of legal provision which would permit survival of any remainder that is not directly eliminated. My understanding is that if one feature goes down the entire bill is crash and burn.
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.