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

Skip to comments.

Constitutional Challenge To Obamacare
David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | Joseph Klein

Posted on 03/24/2010 10:18:54 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien

With the ink barely dry from President Obama’s signature, the attorneys general in more than a dozen states went to court. They filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance.

On his “Is it legal” segment last night, Bill O’Reilly 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 Constitution’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhotyranny; democrats; healthcare; obama; obamacare; socialisthealthcare; tyranny

1 posted on 03/24/2010 10:18:54 AM PDT by Michael van der Galien
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

Does anyone actually think this has a chance?


2 posted on 03/24/2010 10:19:52 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

It better have a chance or the Bill or Right are not worth the paper they were printed on.


3 posted on 03/24/2010 10:22:22 AM PDT by Sarah-bot (The bloom is off the fart blossum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

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.


4 posted on 03/24/2010 10:22:36 AM PDT by vrwconspiracist (The Tax Man cometh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

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.


5 posted on 03/24/2010 10:22:42 AM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

yes.


6 posted on 03/24/2010 10:22:48 AM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

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).


7 posted on 03/24/2010 10:24:18 AM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

Yes, I think it does!

You wrote-

“Does anyone actually think this has a chance?”


8 posted on 03/24/2010 10:25:03 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

well - it will be before the same SC that now allows private business to make campaign contributions


9 posted on 03/24/2010 10:25:56 AM PDT by Revelation 911 (How many 100's of 1000's of our servicemen died so we would never bow to a king?" -freeper pnh102)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
Does anyone actually think this has a chance?

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.

10 posted on 03/24/2010 10:26:47 AM PDT by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

This would be a golden opportunity to revist Wickard v Filburn.


11 posted on 03/24/2010 10:27:07 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

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?


12 posted on 03/24/2010 10:28:08 AM PDT by bigcat32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
Does anyone actually think this has a chance?

The vote will be 5-4 one way or another. Depends on which way Kennedy's staff leads him to vote.

13 posted on 03/24/2010 10:31:27 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

I agree.
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.

Ex-
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?


14 posted on 03/24/2010 10:32:09 AM PDT by a real Sheila (3-21-10 The first shot of the 2nd American Revolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

Do it now while we have an outside chance at 5 to 4 win.


15 posted on 03/24/2010 10:34:28 AM PDT by Woebama (Never, never, never quit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

If they taxed stupidty, it would balance the budget,,,,,demand the birth cert. dumb asses!!!


16 posted on 03/24/2010 10:35:52 AM PDT by Waco (Kalifonia don't need no stenkin oil and no stenkin revenue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

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.


17 posted on 03/24/2010 10:41:13 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

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.


18 posted on 03/24/2010 10:42:46 AM PDT by NoobRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Waco

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.


19 posted on 03/24/2010 10:44:05 AM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Clump
I think it has merit.

The Dems could have made it more legally sound by saying that EVERYONE has to pay a $1000 a year Health Insurance Tax, and offset it with a credit equal to the maximum of the Health Insurance Tax or 30% of the cost of your annual premiums (or your spouses or parents premiums).

That would have made it 100% a taxing item, more legally sound but politically even worse because it would be an ADMITTED tax on everyone.

So I think they went with the more politically acceptable (in their minds) solution of a penalty.

And that why it will not stand constitutional scrutiny -- it penalizes you for refusing to buy something.
20 posted on 03/24/2010 10:47:39 AM PDT by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
This would be a golden opportunity to revist Wickard v Filburn.

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

21 posted on 03/24/2010 10:49:12 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien
QUESTION FOR YOU LEGAL SCHOLARS

I have my health care benefits (about $10,000) provided by my company as a Flexible Spending Account (FSA). These are now taxable because of Health Care Reform, (no matter what my income level).

Traditional health care benefits, if under $10,800, are still NOT taxable.

Does that possibly violate the Equal Protection Clause (14th amendment)?
22 posted on 03/24/2010 10:50:17 AM PDT by atomicweeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

Obamacare road to cliff.


23 posted on 03/24/2010 10:51:05 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

It’s ultimately going to come down to the states.

Like the man from Tennessee said... they will be met at the border.


24 posted on 03/24/2010 10:54:53 AM PDT by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lumper20

Selective Service only applies to males.


25 posted on 03/24/2010 10:58:12 AM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

But the bill doesn’t say if you don’t buy insurance you’ll be taxed.

It says fined. Penalties...


26 posted on 03/24/2010 10:59:10 AM PDT by Freddd (CNN is down to Three Hundred Thousand viewers. But they worked for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a real Sheila

... 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...


27 posted on 03/24/2010 11:02:12 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Michael van der Galien

“broad powers that Congress has been permitted by the courts to exercise”

It’s not about precedent, it’s about the Constitution.


28 posted on 03/24/2010 11:05:19 AM PDT by Spok (Free Range Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

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?


29 posted on 03/24/2010 11:08:55 AM PDT by Juana la Loca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Juana la Loca
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.

30 posted on 03/24/2010 11:12:26 AM PDT by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

thank you!


31 posted on 03/24/2010 11:46:25 AM PDT by Juana la Loca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Juana la Loca

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.


32 posted on 03/24/2010 11:53:32 AM PDT by jessduntno (B. Hussein Obama...I look at him and think, in the words of Biden, "Big F***ing deal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: atomicweeder

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.


33 posted on 03/24/2010 12:21:12 PM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
Does anyone actually think this has a chance?

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.

34 posted on 03/24/2010 12:24:40 PM PDT by exit82 (Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vrwconspiracist

“the court would defenestrate itself”

Had to look it up, great word.


35 posted on 03/24/2010 12:34:26 PM PDT by Duck Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: atomicweeder

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.


36 posted on 03/24/2010 12:39:00 PM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: murron

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.


37 posted on 03/24/2010 3:51:01 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Clump

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.


38 posted on 03/24/2010 3:58:16 PM PDT by Lumper20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

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.


39 posted on 04/04/2010 9:56:03 PM PDT by bvidar (Libertarian Constitutionalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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