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 1-2021-39 next last

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]


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