Skip to comments.How A Legal Technicality Could Unravel Obamacare
Posted on 12/03/2012 11:24:59 AM PST by WilliamIII
Obamacare supporters rejoiced in June when the Supreme Court ruled the U.S. could use its taxing authority to mandate that most people buy health insurance.
But their celebrations may have been a bit premature.
The Affordable Care Act faces other legal hurdlesincluding a challenge that only could have been made after the Supreme Courts ruling.
The right-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation amended its challenge to the ACA after the Supreme Court upheld the insurance mandate under Congress taxing powers.
The group's challenge turns on the Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which requires that bills for raising revenue start in the House of Representatives.
Problem is, the group argues, Obamacare started in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I have become convinced that Roberts was in some way coerced to change his position. Either threatening him or his family. I have never believed that such things actually take place, especially at that high a level, but when you look at his orginal declarations during the case and in the original majority opinion he originally wrote, there is no other logical reason he would have decided to change his mind and use the circuitous reasoning he eventually used in his second majority opinion. It simply makes no sense. At first I just accepted that he was afraid his court would be viewed as too political and changed, but even if he did have that change of heart, his decision would not have been such a mess.
Roberts already made it crystal clear that he will uphold Obamacare based on politics, not law. Unless he has somehow changed his mind in the interim, this is a waste of time.
it’s getting clearer by the day that it’s just a question of time before the SHTF and the people will take back DC. Once that happens it would do to amend the Constitution so all elected officials can not exclude themselves from any laws they pass. They get no special treatment or perks in any way, period. All newly proposed legislation before voted upon would have to first pass Constitutional scrutiny.
Duh!!! That’s why Roberts let it pass. That’s how it is supposed to work
I do not trust this Supreme Court to rule the right way a second time, considering they blew it the first time.
Prediction: John Roberts will decide to rule that for purposes of this bill the Senate is actually the House.
As I recall, this was discussed earlier and the Senate took an existing House effort and turned it into Obama Care. It did originate in the House as I recall
Surely you don’t expect the Supreme Court to actually uphold the language and intent of the Constitution??!!!
Roberts has already proven that to be nonsense!
Only if the Supreme Court actually reads the Constitution.
The Republican leadership are so F-ing stupid!
Suitable place to bump this thread. Unfortunately, you are right when you say the Constitution is a dead letter. It grieves me.
This “technicality” is simply the law, and it’s been evident since the Supreme Court ruling.
Few noticed it because they were busy pitching fits instead of thinking.
By defining healthcare “penalties” as taxes, the Court rightly handed the issue back to Congress, which has the Constitutional power both to tax and to repeal taxes.
Read Roberts’ opinion. He basically said that it’s not the job of the Court to legislate or to undo legislators’ boneheaded laws. Not in those words, but that’s what he said.
Congress got us in this mess; we need to pressure them to get us out of it.
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.”
In other words, Congress has the legal power to enact stupid and harmful laws.
Excellent column here: Justice Roberts’ Extremely Conservative Obamacare Opinion
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nations elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.
In other words, Congress has the legal power to enact stupid and harmful laws.”
Well, then I guess we don’t need a Supreme Court to interpret and/or rule on the constitutionality of stupid and harmful laws passed by Congress. The people have no final protection via the Court. The Supreme Court is thus superfluous; therefore, do away with it.
It is, strictly speaking, which it should be, the duty of the court to rule on whether or not a law or action is in keeping with our Constitution.
A law can be double-dumb and still be Constitutional. The Constitution is our blueprint, but it is no firewall against human stupidity.
We duly elected those lawmakers who passed Obamacare.The court merely said that they COULD lawfully pass a terrible piece of legislation, not whether they SHOULD have.
In other words, it’s not the job of the Court to save us from the wrongheadedness of those whom we elect to Congress.
We have 4 members on the court who will vote to do the right thing, the thugs now have 5. Its basic math even 7 year old can understand.
“Ordinary citizens have no standing to sue over such matters.”
The peasantry has no standing. Period.
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.