Skip to comments.Constitutional Challenge To Obamacare
Posted on 03/24/2010 10:18:54 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien
With the ink barely dry from President Obamas signature, the attorneys general in more than a dozen states went to court. They filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Obamacares individual mandate requiring virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance.
On his Is it legal segment last night, Bill OReilly posed the bottom-line question: What are the odds that the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare? While his two legal beagle experts believed the challenge had some merit, they both thought it would ultimately fail.
They focused on the very broad powers that Congress has been permitted by the courts to exercise since the New Deal under the Constitutions Interstate Commerce Clause. They also mentioned that the enforcement of the mandate was set up under Congress taxing authority, which too is very broad. Indeed, the IRS will be hiring 16,000 new employees to monitor and enforce the mandate the Democrats job stimulus program in action.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Does anyone actually think this has a chance?
It better have a chance or the Bill or Right are not worth the paper they were printed on.
If not, Marbury vs. Madison was ultimately pointless. If the court accedes to a commerce clause that overrides all other constitutional provisions, the court would defenestrate itself as a third branch of government.
they knocked down the campaign finance which was less clear than this, IMO. The founders are on record many times over about this type of thing, and this court (as it is currently made up of a pretty solid 5-4 majority in these areas), will likely have problems with at least some of this bill. Doubt they would knock down the whole thing there is precedence for Fed involvement in health care regulations...but the many mandates and intrusions are outside anything seen before.
I am reseaching it thoroughly because I may be filing a lawsuit in federal court here in Texas. There may be sevara grounds to challenge it, and a variety of remedies sought. The composition of the court needs to stay the same or improve
(unlikely to improve before this gets there).
Yes, I think it does!
“Does anyone actually think this has a chance?”
well - it will be before the same SC that now allows private business to make campaign contributions
Yes. There is a precedent being cited (I forgot to write down what it was, but it was from 1913, IIRC) that the government cannot compel an individual to enter into a contract.
If the courts actually do their job, this bill will be repealed, or at least so gutted as to be unrecognizable.
This would be a golden opportunity to revist Wickard v Filburn.
Does anyone think that the Supreme Court Justices want to use this to exact revenge on Obama for his openly hostile verbal berating at the SOTUA?
The vote will be 5-4 one way or another. Depends on which way Kennedy's staff leads him to vote.
I think there will be various segments of the bill that will be ruled as unconstitutional.
If they rule in favor of this, LOOK OUT.
WHEN GM starts whining for more money to fund its union pensions, what will keep congress from enacting new laws REQUIRING all households earning >$95K (aka THE FILTHY RICH) to purchase their new hybrid POS?
Then, what will keep them from passing legislation every year to require us to purchase goods or services from any corporation who has given generously to the Dems?
Do it now while we have an outside chance at 5 to 4 win.
If they taxed stupidty, it would balance the budget,,,,,demand the birth cert. dumb asses!!!
Does anyone actually think this has a chance?
Yes. First Congress cannot exceed its legal mandate with respect to individuals and states. It has. Secondly, Congress invokes a backassward argument concerning the Commerce Clause. Thirdly, when greater than 25 states sue, and they will, the Supremes will have to evaluate quality of the complaint but also the quantity of those makeing the complaint. Nothing like asking the Supremes to eviserate the State Constitutions of half the country.
If this stands, you’ll next see the end of the United States-literally. Half the states will secede from the union or there will be such civil discourse that our country goes into guerilla warfare.
I thought the law was clear that Congress shall pass no law that does not apply to all citizens? When is the Congress, Pres, and; their appointees exempt? Hell, they are citizens first.
Clarence Thomas seems to be the lone voice on returning the Commerce Clause to its original understanding. I don't know where Alito and Roberts stand on the issue, but Scalia has endorsed the "substantial effects" doctrine (and then some):
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
Obamacare road to cliff.
It’s ultimately going to come down to the states.
Like the man from Tennessee said... they will be met at the border.
Selective Service only applies to males.
But the bill doesn’t say if you don’t buy insurance you’ll be taxed.
It says fined. Penalties...
... In breaking news, Congress has just agreed to remove the health care insurance mandate for anyone on the Supreme Court, or any of their staffs...
“broad powers that Congress has been permitted by the courts to exercise”
It’s not about precedent, it’s about the Constitution.
I am no legal scholar, so can someone help me with a question? If the government cannot compel you to enter a contract for health care coverage, how is it that states can compel you to purchase car insurance?
Simple, they can't.
You agree to purchase car insurance for the right to drive on publicly-maintained roads. But if you choose not to drive, you don't need car insurance.
The difference in this case is that there is no option to choose to not have health insurance, as all people (with conspicuous exceptions) are required to purchase the insurance by simple virtue of being.
I am no legal scholar, so can someone help me with a question? If the government cannot compel you to enter a contract for health care coverage, how is it that states can compel you to purchase car insurance?”
You do not need to drive a car, therefore you do not NEED to pay a tax. If you are born here, you have the right to be able to live in America, and are now being told to pay a tax for that right. One taxes a privilege, the other taxes a right. Apples and oranges.
That would be a “direct tax” on everyone and is addressed in Count Two of the suit filed in Florida. Obama and his lawyers tried to square a round whole but failed.
3. In addition, the tax penalty required under the Act, which must be paid by uninsured citizens and residents, constitutes an unlawful capitation or direct tax, in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States.
60. The tax penalty on uninsured persons under the Act constitutes a capitation and a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states according to census data, thereby injuring the sovereign interests of Plaintiffs.
It better, otherwise it is time to do what we said in the Declaration of Indepencdence in 1776, and institute a whole new government that protects our rights when the old one fails to do so.
And that includes new courts.
“the court would defenestrate itself”
Had to look it up, great word.
That is an important distinction in my mind too. I’m having to step back from my anger so I can see the legal issues more clearly. Maybe I need a few more days.
Selective service has zip to do with Congress as they are too damn old.
Glad your son is serving, know you are proud, and; I am not your enemy.
This is off topic.
The legal issues are based on Obama, the ACLU, CAIR, plus every damn appointee of Obama’s with a law degree who hates our constitution. Obama has always maintained the constitution is not law.
It is also important to note that NO state requires comprehensive automobile insurance. They simply require liability insurance or a bond to insure that anyone injured or damaged by the action of another has an assurance of some compensation. I get sick when people use that example to justify mandatory health insurance. They are not comparable. Also, auto insurance is a state matter, not a federal matter. The constitution allows the individual states to require this type of coverage.