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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 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