States Objecting to Health Care Law to Get Day in Appeals Court

Fox News ^ | June 7, 2011 | Lee Ross

[sheikdetailfeather]

For the third time in five weeks, the Obama administration's legal point man for defending the president’s health care overhaul will walk into a federal appellate courtroom Wednesday to defend the controversial measure as an appropriate and proper exercise of the government's power.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal has steadfastly argued the law, passed in March 2010, is a necessary and reasonable response to halt the increasing costs of medical care despite claims by 26 state governments and the largest small-business group in the nation that the law's requirements are unconstitutional.

Katyal is expected to tell three judges of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta that the law is a valid exercise of congressional power to regulate commerce and tax.

[sheikdetailfeather]

This is going to be an important ruling.

[EagleUSA]

This horror-story is so unconstitutional, to say nothing of its outright Marxist purposes, it should be thrown out by ANY rightful court that still respects the freedom and liberty of the American individual and our constitutional republic.

I could go on, but no need. The true intent of “Obamacare” is anything but health care.

[Steelers6]

This ruling could make or break or country and constitution. If the Congress and the President can make us buy things against our will to benefit commerce . Other than Heller, McDonald and Kilo as more important cases, 2 out of 3 went our way.

[max americana]

>Katyal is expected to tell three judges of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta that the law is a valid exercise of congressional power to regulate commerce and tax.<

And did everyone know what this obama ass-licking lackey said a week ago?

“Earn less money so you will be exempted”.

[Still Thinking]

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal has steadfastly argued the law, passed in March 2010, is a necessary and reasonable response to halt the increasing costs of medical care...

I'm pretty sure "It's a good idea!" isn't a Constitutional argument. And THAT'S if it were a good idea.

[TJC]

Means nothing. The SCOTUS will decide this not a lower court.

[freekitty]

Ah, there we have it. That nasty commerce and tax that our Congressional Senate has always used secretly to do business without our knowledge.

[DrC]

“I’m pretty sure “It’s a good idea!” isn’t a Constitutional argument. And THAT’S if it were a good idea.”

It isn’t a good idea.
http://healthreformreport.com/2011/06/the-individual-mandate-isnt-about-saving-money.php

[Still Thinking]

Oh, I’m quite aware. Just saying that even if it WERE, that would be of no Constitutional significance.

[bvw]

The Democratic judges are likely to issue a ruling that delays getting the case to the Supreme Court. IMO