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 ...
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.
thank you!
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.
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.