Thread: The Obamacare is Unconstitutional Thread

BREAKING NEWS:Federal judge declares Obama health care law unconstitutionalAP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/...rhaul_virginia

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.

Originally Posted by Bunion

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

ok so the constitution doesn't say that they can do this, but does it say anywhere that they can't?

Originally Posted by grubbers

ok so the constitution doesn't say that they can do this, but does it say anywhere that they can't?

10th A.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

12345

Originally Posted by toast2266

10th A.




12345

ah yes, that is true, although this wouldn't be the first time that amendment has been violated.

remember back when the dea was raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in california? medical mj was legal in cali and the regulation of drugs should be a state-controlled issue according to the 10th amendment, yet the federal government was still trying to assert its power in this matter. definitely not the only case where the 10th amendment has been violated and the courts haven't done much either. not saying that it's right, but if we overturn obamacare due to that, then shouldn't every law that violates the 10th amendment be overturned? that could cause some problems.

Originally Posted by toast2266

10th A.

Originally Posted by grubbers

ah yes, that is true, although this wouldn't be the first time that amendment has been violated.

remember back when the dea was raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in california? medical mj was legal in cali and the regulation of drugs should be a state-controlled issue according to the 10th amendment, yet the federal government was still trying to assert its power in this matter. definitely not the only case where the 10th amendment has been violated and the courts haven't done much either. not saying that it's right, but if we overturn obamacare due to that, then shouldn't every law that violates the 10th amendment be overturned? that could cause some problems.

These cases are about the inherent tension between the commerce clause and the tenth amendment.

The administration's position is that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause and the supreme court cases construing it, including Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case and US v. Lopez.

If you were to read the commerce clause in isolation and apply the health care legislation to it, it would be easy to conclude that the commerce clause is insufficient authority for many many things that the government regulates. However, the cases construing it have effectively OK'd the federal government's regulation of many things that are not "interstate commerce" in any sense of the word. See also Wickard v. Filburn.

^^^ agreed. I didn't mean to imply that the health care law is actually unconstitutional, just that the 10th A. is what says the government can't do things that aren't permitted by the constitution.

I haven't read the health care law or the judge's opinion referenced in the OP, and thus have no idea what the arguments are. Judging by the vast majority of commerce clause interpretations, I find it somewhat unlikely that this law would ultimately be found to be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by grubbers

....then shouldn't every law that violates the 10th amendment be overturned? that could cause some problems.

Can you imagine if Obamacare opened the Pandora's Box that you suggest for the libs?

Talk about a backfire of epic proportions!!

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Can you imagine if Obamacare opened the Pandora's Box that you suggest for the libs?

Talk about a backfire of epic proportions!!

Those pot dispensaries mentioned above are obviously a hallmark of the republican agenda. The libs will be soooooo pissed when those get to operate without DEA interference.

Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled as expected against the individual mandate but the Judge did not rule against the health care reform bill like the plaintiff wanted.

The judge upheld the rest of the reform law. There is no injunction against the overall health care bill itself, meaning the issue of the individual mandate will be be decided by the Supreme Court, but absent a different ruling from another case or an act of Congress, the health care bill remains the law of the land.

I'm pretty sure that striking down just the individual mandate is not what the insurers wanted.

The theory behind the mandate is simple: It's there to protect against an insurance death spiral. Now that insurers can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, it would be entirely possible for people to forgo insurance until, well, they develop a medical condition. In that world, the bulk of the people buying insurance on the exchanges are sick, and that makes the average premiums terrifically expensive. The mandate is there to bring healthy people into the pool, which keeps average costs down and also ensures that people aren't riding free on the system by letting society pay when they get hit by a bus.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...al_mandat.html

Originally Posted by Triage

Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled as expected against the individual mandate but the Judge did not rule against the health care reform bill like the plaintiff wanted.

The judge upheld the rest of the reform law. There is no injunction against the overall health care bill itself, meaning the issue of the individual mandate will be be decided by the Supreme Court, but absent a different ruling from another case or an act of Congress, the health care bill remains the law of the land.

Without the Individual Mandate the budget is busted. I'm sure the Dems calculated that the IM wouldn't hold up in court but they needed it for the CBO numbers to work. They figure they'll just get the money somewhere else or they'll have to push for what they always wanted in the first place. Single payer.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Without the Individual Mandate the budget is busted. I'm sure the Dems calculated that the IM wouldn't hold up in court but they needed it for the CBO numbers to work. They figure they'll just get the money somewhere else or they'll have to push for what they always wanted in the first place. Single payer.

There are any number of ways the Individual Mandate could be restructured so that it gets around the issue of regulating inactivity. This issue alone has been discussed at length in many other threads with just one example being the use of incentives rather than mandates to achieve a similar outcome, like they do in Australia.

As an aside, Congress has used its Article I powers to compel individuals to do something since the countries founding so the individual mandate is not without precedent:

1. To purchase and maintain at the citizens expense, military gear
2. To raise and support Armies
3. To provide and maintain a Navy
4. To register for the military draft
5. To serve on jury duty
6. To constitute Tribunals
7. To take property pursuant to eminent domain

I can also make the argument on how each of those things are different from the individual mandate but the point is that after today's ruling and baring a different ruling in another case or an act of congress, the health care reform bill will stand. Separately, as expected, the Supreme Court will rule on the individual mandate.

Originally Posted by Triage

There are any number of ways the Individual Mandate could be restructured so that it gets around the issue of regulating inactivity. This issue alone has been discussed at length in many other threads with just one example being the use of incentives rather than mandates to achieve a similar outcome, like they do in Australia.

As an aside, Congress has used its Article I powers to compel individuals to do something since the countries founding so the individual mandate is not without precedent:

1. To purchase and maintain at the citizens expense, military gear
2. To raise and support Armies
3. To provide and maintain a Navy
4. To register for the military draft
5. To serve on jury duty
6. To constitute Tribunals
7. To take property pursuant to eminent domain

I can also make the argument on how each of those things are different from the individual mandate but the point is that after today's ruling and baring a different ruling in another case or an act of congress, the health care reform bill will stand. Separately, as expected, the Supreme Court will rule on the individual mandate.

NOT...hahahahahahahaha

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Note: this judge owns a "consulting" firm called Campaign Solutions LLC.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

Note: this Attorney General paid Campaign Solutions LLC $10,000 in 2010 for "consulting".

This is the kind of shit that goes on in banana republics.

Originally Posted by Harry

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Note: this judge owns a "consulting" firm called Campaign Solutions LLC.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

Note: this Attorney General paid Campaign Solutions LLC $10,000 in 2010 for "consulting".

This is the kind of shit that goes on in banana republics.

Right Harry, That is banana republic stuff. In developed countries like the USA, Unions give presidential candidates tens of MILLIONS of dollars and get General Motors in return.

Grow up.

Just give everybody health care and then just tax them for it. Duh. Isn't that what we do with everything else?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Right Harry, That is banana republic stuff. In developed countries like the USA, Unions give presidential candidates tens of MILLIONS of dollars and get General Motors in return.

Grow up.

Unions AND corporations.

Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by Triage

There are any number of ways the Individual Mandate could be restructured so that it gets around the issue of regulating inactivity. This issue alone has been discussed at length in many other threads with just one example being the use of incentives rather than mandates to achieve a similar outcome, like they do in Australia.

As an aside, Congress has used its Article I powers to compel individuals to do something since the countries founding so the individual mandate is not without precedent:

1. To purchase and maintain at the citizens expense, military gear
2. To raise and support Armies
3. To provide and maintain a Navy
4. To register for the military draft
5. To serve on jury duty
6. To constitute Tribunals
7. To take property pursuant to eminent domain

I can also make the argument on how each of those things are different from the individual mandate but the point is that after today's ruling and baring a different ruling in another case or an act of congress, the health care reform bill will stand. Separately, as expected, the Supreme Court will rule on the individual mandate.

Don't forget we're all required to purchase auto insurance.

We all know that corporations and unions buy out politicians.

Pretty sad that judges are now being bought out as well.

Why discriminate against Judges, they are politicians too.

Originally Posted by 13

Don't forget we're all required to purchase auto insurance.

The difference with auto insurance is that no government entity is forcing anyone to own and drive a car, only insure it if they drive on public roads.

I'm not entirely comfortable with an individual mandate but I understand its importance, like auto insurance. One solution is allowing people to opt-out of the system if they are willing to sign a contract stating that they cannot opt-in for a period of five years thus eliminating the free rider problem. Opting out essentially means buying into the current system: running the risk of preexisting conditions, being dropped arbitrarily, cost limit ceilings, big increases in premiums on a year-to-year basis, etc.

Allowing people to contractually opt-out and not allowing them to opt-in if they get sick is how the German system is set up. The vast majority of German citizens chose to opt-in.

Originally Posted by 13

Don't forget we're all required to purchase auto insurance.

By states not the fed. gov't. Driving isn't a basic right either, you aren't required to drive a car.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Right Harry, That is banana republic stuff. .

Glad to see that you and I agree on something.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

In developed countries like the USA, Unions give presidential candidates tens of MILLIONS of dollars and get General Motors in return.

Good job highjacking your own thread DBT. WTF do labor unions and General Motoirs have to do with the court case in Virginia ?

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Grow up.

I am in my mid-50's and I have skied Big Sky 17 of the last 20 days. So I doubt I will be growing up anytime soon. You really should take up the sport of skiing. It is fun and will probably mellow out your harsh attitude.

I also notice that you did not dispute the financial ties between the attorney and the judge in this case.... So that news must be making the rounds on the conservative websites too... It will be interesting to see how Fox News spins it.

Gotta log off now, the lifts close in an hour and a half, and I want to get a few more runs in...

Why not just put in a provision (like Romneycare originally had) that allows people to opt out of the health insurance mandate if they sign a bond that demonstrated their ability to cover their health care expenses?