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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
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]

To: Verginius Rufus

Didn’t we hear a while ago that expecting proper punctuation is racist?

“Let’s eat, Gramma!”

Punctuation... it saves lives.


51 posted on 03/21/2014 11:54:51 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Quality_Not_Quantity
Ann Barnhardt had a slightly different take on punctuation saving lives:

"Let's eat Grandma!" vs.

"Let's eat, Grandma!"

52 posted on 03/21/2014 11:55:27 AM PDT by who knows what evil? (Yehovah saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

How many people will even get that reference?

I did, but I’m getting older...


53 posted on 03/21/2014 11:55:37 AM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity (Liars use facts when the truth doesn't suit their purposes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | 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?”

I won’t speak to the opposition’s argument, but as far as I know you don’t create a Corporation.

The “state” (meant generically) “creates” a corporation. Whatever you propose as a corporation to the state is not a corporation until the state says so and the state might attach some hooks and strings before saying so.


54 posted on 03/21/2014 11:58:08 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota
Above all, what was the intent of the founders?

Well, here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say:

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

55 posted on 03/21/2014 12:02:03 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
I am having absolutely NO problem parsing the sentence. Try this on for size:

No individual shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act...

No company shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act...

No business shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act...

No nonprofit entity shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act...

No 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...

Does that read better for you?

Separate out the comma'd portions and you have proper (and legal) sentence for each.

I do like how you added a comma... clever, but quite wrong.

56 posted on 03/21/2014 12:05:00 PM PDT by rjsimmon (The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Wish we could, wish we could....
As nice a person in real life as on stage.
He has the angels giggling now.


57 posted on 03/21/2014 12:06:57 PM PDT by Quick Shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I’d agree with you if these rights were only given to corporations which are wholly owned by US citizens. Now, even our enemies are allowed to actively influence our elections through corporations that there own.


58 posted on 03/21/2014 12:09:51 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Quick Shot

I can laugh at comedians who work blue....but I think Borge made me laugh even more.

And yes, probably never a nicer, kinder soul ever in the entertainment industry.


59 posted on 03/21/2014 12:13:17 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

In answer to your question, before the ruling,they already had all of their rights as individuals.


60 posted on 03/21/2014 12:13:59 PM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 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