Court rRuling on Obamacare

[broncofan]

That's funny, I was just talking about the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court just ruled today that the federal law was constitutional. So, it was passed pursuant to the federal government's constitutionally enumerated authority. So, there is no power left to reside in the states as they cannot pass a law that expressly or implicitly contradicts a federal law that does not violate the Constitution (according to the highest court in the land; not you dimwit).

The mandate is passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause. The fine if you do not get insurance is covered I presume by the Taxing and Spending Clause. As the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the mandate and the fine for violating the mandate, you have no choice but to comply or violate the law.

There's a place for people who do that. It's called prison.

Actually I just read my first news article on it. Roberts' majority opinion apparently predicated the constitutionality of the mandate on the Taxing and Spending Clause. Either way, the mandate is constitutional. Do what you like Loren.

[loren]

Bump.

Well, are you going to respond, Loren?

Point of fact, I don't have any health insurance since I was unduly fired from my job.

[loren]

That's funny, I was just talking about the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court just ruled today that the federal law was constitutional. So, it was passed pursuant to the federal government's constitutionally enumerated authority. So, there is no power left to reside in the states as they cannot pass a law that expressly or implicitly contradicts a federal law that does not violate the Constitution.

It is only considered "Constitutional" just because 5 people said it is. I bet I can find five people who say the Earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the Earth; does it make it true. There is NOWHERE in the Constitution that empowers Congress to effect a major overhaul of the health care industry.

[flabbybody]

Smart call, Flabbybody...

A few thoughts:

1) Having lost the case at this juncture, the Tea Party must now either campaign on an 'opt out' provision that Romney says he will introduce if elected; or turn their attention to something else in revenge;

2) I note in the report in The Guardian just now this note on the case against:
"... lawyers for 26 US states challenging the legislation said Congress went beyond its powers by, for the first time in its history, requiring people to buy a product from the private sector."
-Surely all US citizens are obliged to buy car insurance? Doesn't this therefore mean that there is a law which obliges US citizens who drive to buy a product from the private sector?

3) Does the concept of 'interstate commerce' mean insurance? I do understand that health is big business, in the UK as well as everywhere else, but to me my first reaction is to call it a service: surely it cannot be health-care in the US that is considered 'interstate commerce'? Apologies for my ignorance on this.

Perhaps Obamacare should now become Obama Cares...?

thank you sir.
I'd love to know how George W feels right about now over his 2005 choice for Chief Justice. and Senator Obama voted against the Roberts nomination. delicious irony

[broncofan]

It is only considered "Constitutional" just because 5 people said it is. I bet I can find five people who say the Earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the Earth; does it make it true. There is NOWHERE in the Constitution that empowers Congress to effect a major overhaul of the health care industry.

"We must remember it is a constitution we are expounding". It is not supposed to have the "prolixity of a legal code." These words were spoken by Chief Justice Marshall in McCullough v. Maryland. The Constitution gives the federal government enumerated powers. It does not specifically list activities the federal government is allowed to partake in.

When it comes to the issue of the constitutionality of federal law, ever since Marbury v. Madison, it only matters what the Supreme Court says. You can find five people, ten people, a billion people. But can you find five people on the Supreme Court? No. So you must pay the tax, or go where everyone else who makes frivolous tax evasion arguments go.

Many people every day assert that the federal gov. doesn't have jurisdiction over them, can't force them to pay taxes, that they choose to opt out of any program the gov. enacts with tax money etc. Such justifications of per se violations of the law end up being completely disregarded in court. Will you go before a judge and make such an argument?

[onmyknees]

Well fortunately we had founders smart enough for us to remedy even bad Supreme Court Decisions.....it's called elections, and one is coming soon. I would say two things to you libs and progressives who are dancing behind your keyboards in your tighty whities...

1. We now live in a country where the central government can tax you for something you choose not to partake in. ( Health insurance) And where the President assures us something is not a tax, and the Supreme Court rewrites the law to say it is. If you're good with all that....by all means gloat.
2. Be careful what you wish for and what you find momentary political satisfaction in. All this precedent and use of Executive Privilege, Executive Orders used to skirt laws ranging from DOMA to immigration, and the use of reconciliation and vote buying to pass Obama Care will be at the disposal of the next Conservative President. And being the even minded crew you are....I'm sure you won't mind when on day 1 Romney indulges in the same practices as Obama. Or if we should be fortunate enough to win the Senate, I'm sure you'll see it as fair and just when we begin to pass legislation without any input or dare I say votes from the minority party. Surely all's fair in love and politics...right?

[buttslinger]

well fortunately we had founders smart enough for us to remedy even bad supreme court decisions.....it's called elections, and one is coming soon. I would say two things to you libs and progressives who are dancing behind your keyboards in your tighty whities...

1. We now live in a country where the central government can tax you for something you choose not to partake in. ( health insurance) and where the president assures us something is not a tax, and the supreme court rewrites the law to say it is. If you're good with all that....by all means gloat.
2. Be careful what you wish for and what you find momentary political satisfaction in. All this precedent and use of executive privilege, executive orders used to skirt laws ranging from doma to immigration, and the use of reconciliation and vote buying to pass obama care will be at the disposal of the next conservative president. And being the even minded crew you are....i'm sure you won't mind when on day 1 romney indulges in the same practices as obama. Or if we should be fortunate enough to win the senate, i'm sure you'll see it as fair and just when we begin to pass legislation without any input or dare i say votes from the minority party. Surely all's fair in love and politics...right?

lmao!!!!

[Odelay]

All credit to Flabby in this thread for his predictions. I was pretty pessimistic.

I don't get the conserv-a-hate on Roberts, though. Granted, this was a pet cause for the GOP but that's exactly it - it was a pet cause, not a core cause. This wasn't about big money in politics, union power, class action lawsuits, or any of the countless pro-corporation decisions that the court has rammed down our throats. Roberts was on the "right" side there. And when it comes to overturning Roe v Wade, Roberts will side with his tribe. The long term objective of the GOP to dismantle the safety net is still on course. This was a minor bump in the road. I think, in the end, Roberts saw that he'd be Chief Justice for another 20+ years and decided this was one he could go against the grain on without upsetting the over all objectives of the far right agenda which is keeping taxes low on the rich, shredding the safety net, keeping big money in politics to keep Republicans in control, and voter restriction activities to counterbalance the coming demographic disadvantage.

I disagree with 95% of modern conservative causes, but I have to admit that the people behind this agenda are smart in the ways that they're able to win.

[BluegrassCat]

Well fortunately we had founders smart enough for us to remedy even bad Supreme Court Decisions.....it's called elections, and one is coming soon. I would say two things to you libs and progressives who are dancing behind your keyboards in your tighty whities...

1. We now live in a country where the central government can tax you for something you choose not to partake in. ( Health insurance) And where the President assures us something is not a tax, and the Supreme Court rewrites the law to say it is. If you're good with all that....by all means gloat.
2. Be careful what you wish for and what you find momentary political satisfaction in. All this precedent and use of Executive Privilege, Executive Orders used to skirt laws ranging from DOMA to immigration, and the use of reconciliation and vote buying to pass Obama Care will be at the disposal of the next Conservative President. And being the even minded crew you are....I'm sure you won't mind when on day 1 Romney indulges in the same practices as Obama. Or if we should be fortunate enough to win the Senate, I'm sure you'll see it as fair and just when we begin to pass legislation without any input or dare I say votes from the minority party. Surely all's fair in love and politics...right?

Let's see, the Constitution was upheld, millions of Americans have healthcare and we made serious efforts to control healthcare costs so of course the Tea-bagger is pissed. Butthurt punk, lmao.

[loren]

[QUOTE=broncofan;1163288]"We must remember it is a constitution we are expounding". It is not supposed to have the "prolixity of a legal code." These words were spoken by Chief Justice Marshall in McCullough v. Maryland. The Constitution gives the federal government enumerated powers. It does not specifically list activities the federal government is allowed to partake in.

When it comes to the issue of the constitutionality of federal law, ever since Marbury v. Madison, it only matters what the Supreme Court says. You can find five people, ten people, a billion people. But can you find five people on the Supreme Court? No. So you must pay the tax, or go where everyone else who makes frivolous tax evasion arguments go.QUOTE]
If you believe in a living Constitution, that can simply be changed by any judge or polition on a whim; then there is not a list of activities that the Federal government is prohibited from. In fact, there is absolutely no limit to the Federal government's authority. (Which begs the question, why even have State governments?) However, if you believe that the original intent Constitution was to establish a legal foundation for all future Federal laws to be built upon and within the limits described by the Constitution; then there is a clear limit to the activities and issues the Federal government is allowed to participate in.

According to inJustice Roberts, The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. By this logic, the law is still unconstitutional. Granted in Article 1 section 8 (first paragraph) it says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,..." They have rebilled the individual mandate as a tax, and there is the rub. Because Article 1 section 7 (first paragraph) says, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.". obamacare, individual mandate, (which they are now saying is a tax) originated in the Senate and therefore according to the supreme law of the land is invalid.

Furthermore, if the obama shows as much zeal in enforcing this "law" as he has shown in enforcing other laws or provisions, I have nothing to worry about. "I don't see any voter intimidation - they just happen to peacefully assemeble in front of the polling place, Congress - I don't really need them if I want to go to war, who needs due process anyway, hey you didn't pay your taxes but you're qualified to tell everyone else they should pay theirs, illegal immigration - they are just misunderstood not criminals, immigration policy - hey I'm not going to do anything to stop them from coming and to hell with any state that wants to do anything about it." Half of obama's cabinet and a good share of the scumbags on Capitol Hill hasn't paid their taxes. I mean Warren Buffett hasen't paid the taxes he has owed for the past ten years and he got the President Medal of Freedom. So, as far as tax evasion is concernned, it looks like I'd be in good company.