Posted on 10/15/2010 5:06:53 AM PDT by truthandlife
“They can only do that for people who decide to use government services and products (the roads).”
And they will say we all use hospitals, ems, etc,,, who cannot refuse to treat us. They will back it up with huge stats of uninsured who use emergency rooms as primary car doctors. And just like that,,, hospitals will become the equivalent of public roads.
They also have the precedent that forces us to purchase their retirement system, social security.
If we are counting on the supreme court to save us from a giant expansion of government, we are screwed.
“They did not insert some sort of legal provision which would permit survival of any remainder”
The dictatorship of the proletariat will simply rule that the rest of the bill survives, and will call it a new precedent. Currently, they decide what they want to do,, and make it appear justified by framing their political decision in constitutional wording. They havent been constrained by rules for a long time. Kelo is a good example,,, campaign finance is another.
The “rules” say soldiers get to vote too. Rules are only a constraint for us,, not for the oligarchy.
It bought peace for their time
Both Hezekiah and Josiah suffered major reverses in those days, as well. Hezekiah was nearly overthrown by the Assyrians (lost everything but his capital, albeit temporarily), and Josiah got himself shot trying to stop Pharaho Necho from going to battle with Nebuchadnezzar. On the way back home, Necho deposed Josiah's successor and installed a his own puppet. Then Nebuchadnessar came and installed his OWN puppet.
Interesting times, for sure. Not what I would consider "peace".
“then why does the Supreme Court think it has the power of a line item veto?”
Masrbury vs Madison. They grabbed powers not given to them,, and have never looked back. They merely would need to vote 5 to 4 that they possess such power,,, and thats that.
Congress could starve them financially, or work to pass an amendment to the constitution, but they won’t.
“You are forced to buy medical insurance just because you are alive.”
####
And the nanny-state reply would be:
“If you don’t have health insurance, then society has to pick up the cost of your medical care”
To which the response ought to be: “No we don’t.”
Now the ugly truth of the matter, is that these people without health insurance, and thus conceivably without health care, would be allowed to suffer and/or die.
If that is not sufficient motivation to personally finance your OWN health insurance and medical care, I don’t know what is.
The federal government does not regulate that, but the states do. Each state regulates the driving age, etc. If the states decidedly independently to mandate the health insurance coverage, then there would be less recourse in the Suprme Court. But, you’d have the option of moving to a different state, if you wanted.
There is a difference in what the *federal* government can do vs. what *state* governments can do. The states are supposed to have fairly broad and general powers especially over the areas of health & safety. The federal government is supposed to have *limited* powers.
Other posters have also made good points about the differences.
RE: Supreme Court Will Overturn Obamacare
Repeat after me -— JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY. It will all depend on which side of the bed he wakes up in.
No more wishful thinking from conservatives. Do or die.
If Obamacare is completely tossed there will likely be a spate of civil unrest, protests, looting, vandalism, etc.
But there is no requirement that I do have it to register a vehicle in NH.
Live Free or Die, baby...
“The Supreme Court is likely to overturn key elements of it”
I wasn’t aware the Supreme Court has Line Item Veto power. Nice.
I was always under the understanding a bill is either legal or it isn’t, and that’s what the courts are supposed to be making decisions on.
My understanding is that this law is extremely unusual in that it does not have a severalbility clause. Scott Brown's surprise election forced them to accept the Senate version as-was. It wasn't ready yet, and it was assumed that bill would be revised and so no one bothered with a severalbility clause until it was too late. So now, if any section is declared unconstitutional, it all goes down in flames. At least, that's what I heard the FL. AG say.
Et tutu, Brute?
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.