Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could Citizens United and a semi-colon undo Obamacare?
yahoo ^

Posted on 03/21/2014 9:53:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Could Citizens United and a semi-colon undo Obamacare?

National Constitution Center By Scott Bomboy 5 hours ago

Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases related to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the stakes are high for both sides. In fact, the interpretation of a semi-colon in the context of the First Amendment could play a critical role.

The semi-colon’s use was argued in the appeals court decision that led one of the two cases to the Supreme Court’s doorstep.

“Appellants also argue that Citizens United is applicable to the Free Exercise [of religion] Clause because ―the authors of the First Amendment only separated the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause by a semi-colon, thus showing the continuation of intent between the two,” said circuit judge Robert Cowen in the Conestoga Wood appeals court decision. “We are not persuaded that the use of a semi-colon means that each clause of the First Amendment must be interpreted jointly.”

In other words, the semi-colon argument holds that the free exercise of religion and free exercise of speech are linked. Since the Citizens United case gave corporations the same free speech rights as people, the argument states that corporations should have the same free religious exercise rights as people, too, and they should be able to opt out of Obamacare.

Judge Cowen didn’t agree with the logic, but now the issue is one of several that will be argued in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

In late November 2013, the Justices accepted the two cases, to be argued at the same time, which question the government’s ability to compel for-profit companies with religious convictions to pay for birth-control coverage.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 03/21/2014 9:53:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

context is everything!

Thank you.


2 posted on 03/21/2014 9:56:06 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ("Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Words mean things. Sentences mean things. Punctuation serves a purpose.

Above all, what was the intent of the founders?


3 posted on 03/21/2014 9:56:54 AM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

semicolons were never my favorite subject in grammar school, but if a semicolon can remove the Obamacare blight from America (and our American economy!), then THREE CHEERS for the semicolon!
(Truly, the Lord works in mysterious ways...)


4 posted on 03/21/2014 10:00:34 AM PDT by faithhopecharity ("H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Not holding my breath on this. Hope I’m wrong but, I fully expect SCOTUS to come up with the wrong decision (again).


5 posted on 03/21/2014 10:00:41 AM PDT by rllngrk33 (Things will continue getting worse until at least January 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I don’t see any room for debate. The God-given and constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion takes absolute priority over any government whim, even if we ignore the fact that the Supremes were wrong the last time they voted on ObamaCare and the law itself is invalid because it is outside the scope of the Enumerated Powers. Fortunately, Chief Justice Roberts is an intelligent and thoughtful man, so we can count on him to decide this based on the merits . . . time to pray.


6 posted on 03/21/2014 10:01:03 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey
Maybe they could bring in Victor Borge to read it...
7 posted on 03/21/2014 10:03:14 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Robert Byrd thought that commas were pretty. Semicolons, not so much.

-PJ

8 posted on 03/21/2014 10:04:20 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rllngrk33

Since Roberts violated the very fabric of the constitution by ruling ObamaCare legal in the first place, I am not going to hold my breath he’s going to let punctuation stand in his way.


9 posted on 03/21/2014 10:04:53 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

So the opposition’s argument is that if I create a Corporation I surrender all of my Constitutional rights in the act of running it?

That seems a little hard to swallow. Unless I misunderstand.


10 posted on 03/21/2014 10:06:05 AM PDT by Noamie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

;^).....................


11 posted on 03/21/2014 10:06:24 AM PDT by Red Badger (LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

“Words mean things. Sentences mean things. Punctuation serves a purpose.”

when Clinton first said “it depends on what your definition of is, is”, words started their downward spiral of no meaning.


12 posted on 03/21/2014 10:08:42 AM PDT by willywill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Commas are your friend!
13 posted on 03/21/2014 10:08:53 AM PDT by JPG (Yes We Can morphs into Make It Hurt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Well played. “Phonetic Punctuation” is a masterpiece.


14 posted on 03/21/2014 10:09:00 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

I am still curious as to why the ACA has not been challenged with regard to 42 USC § 18115 - Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs?


15 posted on 03/21/2014 10:09:07 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Chief Justice Roberts is awaiting instructions form the administration on how to proceed.


16 posted on 03/21/2014 10:09:49 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Woop De doo, this would only apply to the birth control mandate, an tiny tiny fraction of this monstrocity.


17 posted on 03/21/2014 10:10:34 AM PDT by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

boy does THAT bring back some memories and Laughs!!..

a million bucks to the first poster to successfully pull off a text based quote from Victor’s routine


18 posted on 03/21/2014 10:16:00 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ("Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Wow! Punctuation was fought over drafting the constitution; the semicolon was fought over! “A Semicolon Is Not a Comma,
Or, How a Semicolon Almost Changed the Constitution”
http://www.uwgb.edu/voelkerd/handouts/semicolon-by-david-voelker.pdf


19 posted on 03/21/2014 10:17:48 AM PDT by Bulwinkle (Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rllngrk33

Just like a judge to come up with a
Semicolonoscopy...


20 posted on 03/21/2014 10:18:30 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
A semicolon and a period are pretty much interchangeable. The only reason you would use a semicolon is to emphasize the close relationship betwee the two sentences.
21 posted on 03/21/2014 10:18:32 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

You and me both!


22 posted on 03/21/2014 10:19:29 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Progressive is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Noamie

“So the opposition’s argument is that if I create a Corporation I surrender all of my Constitutional rights in the act of running it?”

That already happened years and years ago with the quota and hiring systems.


23 posted on 03/21/2014 10:33:27 AM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (What we need is to sucker the fedthugs into a "Tiananmen Square"-like incident on the National Mall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“A semicolon and a period are pretty much interchangeable.”

Nope.

A comma is a pause in thought that signals a change, or maybe an addition, about to be added to the thought just expressed.

A semi-colon calls for a longer pause; it means there’s a bigger change or addition coming; it navigates a slightly a more complicated thought.

A period signals the end of a thought. It’s a clear signal that there’s both a new sentence and a new thought coming.

{Each of the above sentences is both an explantation and illustration of correct semi-colon, comma, and period usage.)


24 posted on 03/21/2014 10:34:12 AM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Who knew that over 200 years ago — PUNCTUATION — would be that critical!


25 posted on 03/21/2014 10:37:35 AM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

Punctuation Saves Lives

“Eat more children.”

versus

“Eat more, children.”


26 posted on 03/21/2014 10:39:46 AM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity (Liars use facts when the truth doesn't suit their purposes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Quality_Not_Quantity

LOL


27 posted on 03/21/2014 10:40:15 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Dear E. Pluribus Unum,

In some uses of the semicolon, that's correct. The two phrases could be two separate sentences. I could have written just as properly: In some uses of the semicolon, that's correct; the two phrases could be two separate sentences.

However, the semicolon can also be used to separate items in a list. Here is the text of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Here, the semicolon is used to distinguish between the various elements of the list that “Congress shall make no law respecting...” A reason for using the semicolon is that several of the elements comprising the list contain commas, and they aren't meant to denote the beginning of a new item on the list, but rather are used to manage the grammar within the particular element.

Certainly, from a strictly grammatical perspective, each item is equally the object of the phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting...” Thus, if the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, as legal persons, enjoy the First Amendment-recognized right to free speech, it is altogether plain that the text of the amendment treats the rights of such legal persons as having a right to the free exercise of religion.

At least, from the perspective of the grammatical meaning.


sitetest

28 posted on 03/21/2014 10:47:43 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Excellent.


29 posted on 03/21/2014 10:48:47 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

30 posted on 03/21/2014 10:52:13 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

LOL!


31 posted on 03/21/2014 10:54:53 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Thanks.


32 posted on 03/21/2014 10:55:07 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Husker24; All

“Woop De doo, this would only apply to the birth control mandate, an tiny tiny fraction of this monstrocity.”

Nope, they didn’t put a ‘severability’ clause in the law, strike anything and you strike it all.

They didn’t put it in because they knew that it was an all or nothing bill, and would collapse without the mandate.

At the very least it would remove the employer mandate, which also kills the law.


33 posted on 03/21/2014 10:57:56 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rllngrk33
"Not holding my breath on this. Hope I’m wrong but, I fully expect SCOTUS to come up with the wrong decision (again)."

Those NSA/FBI and other files on the SCOTUS justices, that are updated daily for the Whitehouse, must be huge by now.

34 posted on 03/21/2014 11:00:38 AM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

Amen, it takes no more than an eighth grade education (a real eighth grade education) to realize that the decision that this absurdity is constitutional because the penalty for nonparticipation IS a tax even though those who passed it into law swore it was NOT A TAX is patently ridiculous. If this makes any sense then the whole constitution is useless because the government can force you to do anything including standing on your head in the rain by simply charging a tax for failure to do so. I don’t understand how anyone could take the decision seriously, every lawyer in the country should be up in arms against it but they don’t give a damn as long as they make money.


35 posted on 03/21/2014 11:00:46 AM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

42 USC § 18115
-
“...a case of people viewing information out of context,
this section of the law applies to issuers of insurance,
not purchasers of insurance...
...this law says is that no one who provides health insurance
may be forced to participate in any federal health insurance program...”


36 posted on 03/21/2014 11:04:57 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Citizens United was a bad decision.Corporations shouldn’t be given rights that belong to citizens.


37 posted on 03/21/2014 11:11:31 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
Text of the law:

No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

That whole "individual" thing tells a different story. Unless you have a different definition?

38 posted on 03/21/2014 11:21:32 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
Citizens United was a bad decision.Corporations shouldn’t be given rights that belong to citizens.

I'm going to disagree, Citizens United was about a group of citizens assembling/associating (i.e. incorporating) in order to produce a political publication (a movie, IIRC) — should a group of people be denied the right of free speech that they have individually because they are associated together?

39 posted on 03/21/2014 11:24:45 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Husker24
Woop De doo, this would only apply to the birth control mandate, an tiny tiny fraction of this monstrocity.

Is that clause severable from the rest?

40 posted on 03/21/2014 11:25:10 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

Right after the portion of the sentence you are focused on it clearly states: “offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required...”.

Re-read it, it refers to people (business owners as a group [like a board of directors], or individuals owning /running a business).

What are businesses or corporations other than groups of people?

This discusses those that provide insurance, not those who wish to be (or not be) insured.


41 posted on 03/21/2014 11:26:19 AM PDT by jurroppi1 (The only thing you "pass to see what's in it" is a stool sample. h/t MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jurroppi1
I see your confusion. Commas. They can trip up lots of folks.

The phrase you are looking at refers to "health insurance issuers" who are offering group or individual coverage.

I entreat you to read it again. Understand the punctuation.

No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

They are seperated by commas. This is what the SCOTUS will be taking up as a case via semi-colons. Commas have just as much stature in diction as its hybrid cousin.

42 posted on 03/21/2014 11:34:33 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

It applies to those “offering group or individual health insurance”.
Here is the section in its entirety:
-
42 USC § 18115 - Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs

“No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.”
-
Here is the Free Republic thread on the subject from last January:
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3109998/posts
-


43 posted on 03/21/2014 11:43:39 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

That was one of the biggest shocks in my life.


44 posted on 03/21/2014 11:45:35 AM PDT by lulu16 (May the Good Lord take a liking to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

Punctuation may be his only way back from the blackmail quisling act he foisted upon America.


45 posted on 03/21/2014 11:49:19 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
It applies to those “offering group or individual health insurance”.

Nope. I disagree. Similar arguments are made that the RKBA applies only to the militia. Do you agree with that? They both use commas to seperate the clauses. The law is quite clear in that neither individuals, nor issuers of group or individual plans are required to participate. Plain and simple. SCOTUS agrees. We shall see where it goes with semi-colons.

46 posted on 03/21/2014 11:49:52 AM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Could a semicolon undo Obamacare?

Only if the judges can figure out What the meaning of “it” is.


47 posted on 03/21/2014 11:51:32 AM PDT by lucky american (Progressives are attacking our rights and y'all will sit there and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quality_Not_Quantity
An old example of the difference punctuation can make:

1. Woman! Without her, man is a savage.

2. Woman, without her man, is a savage.

48 posted on 03/21/2014 11:52:52 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

I am sorry if you are having trouble parsing the sentence.

No individual,
or company,
or business,
or nonprofit entity,
or health insurance issuer,
offering group or individual health insurance coverage,
shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program
created under this Act...

You go ahead on and believe whatever it is that you want to believe
if it makes you feel better.


49 posted on 03/21/2014 11:54:26 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

That’s even better than mine!


50 posted on 03/21/2014 11:54:38 AM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity (Liars use facts when the truth doesn't suit their purposes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson