Posted on 03/27/2012 1:13:49 PM PDT by Kaslin
Is this but half the story? What is the likelihood that should they strike down the individual mandate they deem that clause to be separable? Will that even be part of the oral arguments?
With the exemptions you describe why would Obamacare be dead on arrival DOA? I hope it would be but I don’t see how.
In order to repeal Obamacare we are going to need at least:
1. A Republican Non-Romney President, GOP control of the House, 60 Senators that will vote to allow a vote of repeal.
OR
2. Obama as President, GOP control of 2/3’s of the House and Senate to override a veto.
Conclusion:
The votes are not there.
The way to kill Obamacare now is to either:
1. Strike down the individual mandate and rule that severability is not implied, therefore the Act’s provisions are not severable,
OR
2. Strike down the individual mandate and send the law back to Congress for a resolution where Congress will decide to revote on the issue of severability. This would result in an immediate death of Obamacare as the House votes against severability.
I am not sure the SCOTUS can do 2. above, to send a portion of the case back to Congress for a clarification of intent. But I do think it is possible that the House can send to the SCOTUS a resolution of meaning and intent which would of course be against severability. The Senate could do the same but I think a GOP filibuster could stop that. Anyways interesting things to ponder.
The way to kill Obamacare in the future (if there is a future for America as we know it) is to pass H.R. 25 the ‘FairTax’ (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq) and repeal the 16th Amendment. Also an amendment needs to be made to explicitly rollback abuses of the Commerce Clause. Here’s how that can be done:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html
Law Professor Barnett wrote the above about one month after Obamacare was passed.
I didn't catch that.
From this thread, quoting Rush:
There is a left-wing blog called SCOTUSblog, Supreme Court of the United States. And this is a very relevant post on that blog: "Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions, Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment."
Agree. To hear Jeffrey Toobin describe it as a trainwreck you'd sigh with relief. To listen to Krauthammer give a contrary assessment you realize your opinion is as valid as theirs.
Its a tax - everyone pays it (FICA tax).
Ironically, the users of Medicare often pay no FICA tax because they are retired.
And you can buy and sell private insurance even if you qualify for Medicare.
But I do think Medicare is over-reaching that should be unconstitutional.
GMTA! :o)
Medicare is a tax. The benefits can be taken away by the Federal government at any time. Same with SS. Both were sold as insurance plans, but the legislation was carefully crafted as a tax in each case.
Part A applies only if you draw SS. If you do not apply for SS you don’t have to have medicare at all. Therefore it is not mandatory.
You obviously know a lot more about this then me and 99.99% of people.
When Obamacare was passed, I said that it will be struck down by the SCOTUS and its ironic that the most powerful man is a Kennedy. Not John or Ted but Anthony.
When I heard the questions he asked, I still stand by it.
No worries mate!
LLS
If any part is found unconstitutional, I believe its dead.
The lack of a severability clause only means the Court must decide if the Congress would have passed ObamaCare without the Individual Mandate. The presumption is always in favor of severability.
The government forces us to buy, or at least pay for, many things including Medicare, in some cases. I was on my husband's private insurance policy through his retiree plan. But when I was granted permanent disability, our insurance company said they would pay only as secondary and I had to pay whatever Medicare would have paid if I did not go on it. They forced me to go on Medicare, even when combined we were paying $800.00 a month for private coverage. If I really had a choice, I would have elected to stay on private insurance - which is ALWAYS better coverage. But I had to drop it (which now precludes me from EVER coming back) and go on Medicare rather than pay primary payer charges IN ADDITION to forking out over $400 a month to the private insurer. Granted, I could opt out of Medicare Part B but we are not wealthy and MUST have health insurance. When my husband turns 65, he also will be kicked out of private insurance and forced onto Medicare.
I asked you a question on another thread about the cop making the statement, “Live like a thug, die like a thug.” Now to know you have argued in front of SCOTUS, I’m red faced to have asked you such a simpleton question. Me, I’m just an empty nester mom in the midwest!
Am I the only one terrified by this case? We are no longer a Constitutional Republic, but an incompetent ersatz Krytocracy. Rather laws are now modified or struck down based on the whims of an ever evolving whims of a single justice.
Actually, if "things go well in November", LOTS of people need to be impeached. Kagan is only one. Obama needs to be stripped of any post-presidential perks for being the biggest fraud and phoney to EVER hit American politics. Then we go for his "czars" and EVERYONE associated with his administration until we get to the guy who picked up Bo's poop off the WH lawn!!
Actually, if "things go well in November", LOTS of people need to be impeached. Kagan is only one. Obama needs to be stripped of any post-presidential perks for being the biggest fraud and phoney to EVER hit American politics. Then we go for his "czars" and EVERYONE associated with his administration until we get to the guy who picked up Bo's poop off the WH lawn!!
One would think this would be big enough for MSNBC to be talking about. So what is Madcow Maddow ranting about? Bush stealing the election from Gore! ROFL!
NO ONE thought she would recuse herself. This hearing is the sole reason that zero appointed her.
The comment was that she SHOULD recuse herself (like anyone with ethics would have), but we knew that she wouldn't!
It is a different issue, but Medicare has many rules, maybe not forcing people to use it, but aren’t doctors forced to take Medicare patients?
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.