Federal Judge Rules Health Law Violates Constitution

#2
#2
Sheila Jackson Lee will set them straight with her encyclopedic knowledge of the Constitution. Particularly damaging will be her use of the 5th Amendment in defense of the individual mandate.
 
#5
#5
2 to 2 so far.

Remember how Pelosi laughed when someone asked her about the Constitutionality?
 
#13
#13
Too bad, the whole thing was unconstitutional to begin with. If they cared about the constitution this bill would have never passed to begin with. They shoved it down our throats and i hope we shove it back where the sun don't shine.
 
#14
#14
Cartervol said:
Too bad, the whole thing was unconstitutional to begin with. If they cared about the constitution this bill would have never passed to begin with. They shoved it down our throats and i hope we shove it back where the sun don't shine.
Click to expand...

Didn't you hear Pelosi? She said they must pass it to know what's in it. Seems reasonable.
 
#16
#16
punkcat said:
Didn't you hear Pelosi? She said they must pass it to know what's in it. Seems reasonable.
Click to expand...
Since the plan isn't good enough for most of congress and a few privileged idiots, that should tell you how great it's going to be for the rest of us.

I just hope the American people show just how much they appreciate having their right to choose revoked in 2012.
 
#17
#17
5-4 vote; entirely unconstitutional or just the individual mandate? Methinks just the individual mandate.

Implications if that is the case?

I found this amusing:
“Radical judicial activism run amok,” said Families USA, a consumer’s group that advocated for the law.
Click to expand...
 
#18
#18
fl0at said:
5-4 vote; entirely unconstitutional or just the individual mandate? Methinks just the individual mandate.

Implications if that is the case?

I found this amusing:
Click to expand...

The government gave 'em the rope in this case. They argued repeatedly that the mandate was inseparable from the rest of the bill. The judge bought their argument.

The separability question will be huge.
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
The government gave 'em the rope in this case. They argued repeatedly that the mandate was inseparable from the rest of the bill. The judge bought their argument.

The separability question will be huge.
Click to expand...

without it, the thing is voluntary and doomed to being a broken, bloated low end HC option. Oh wait, that's what it'll be regardless, but will get worse.
 
#20
#20
fl0at said:
5-4 vote; entirely unconstitutional or just the individual mandate? Methinks just the individual mandate.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I was reading an article on Red State (unbiased I know), and they were saying that the Dems in their arrogance never put in a severability clause. Thought it was interesting.
Congress typically puts severability clauses in legislation so that if one part of the law is unconstitutional the other parts stand. Congress chose not to in this case.
Click to expand...

Obamacare Unconstitutional | RedState
 
#21
#21
How could they? There's no way for the fuzzy math to add up unless they force the young and healthy into the system to offset the cost of the growing ranks of people pulling resources out of it. The judge's opinion was masterfully written and impossible to refute.
 
#22
#22
Obama Administration Scores Legal Victory On Health Care

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration won a victory Thursday in the winding legal debate surrounding the president's signature health care law, as a federal judge in Mississippi threw out a suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill.

The judge, Keith Starret, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ruled that plaintiffs suing over the coming implementation of the individual mandate did not demonstrate sufficient standing for him to take the case. He "granted in part" the administrations motion to dismiss the case, but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.

"The Court finds that the allegations of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, as stated therein, are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice
Click to expand...
 
#23
#23
distrovol said:
How could they? There's no way for the fuzzy math to add up unless they force the young and healthy into the system to offset the cost of the growing ranks of people pulling resources out of it. The judge's opinion was masterfully written and impossible to refute.
Click to expand...

In shorter terms.....ponzi scheme.
 
#24
#24
Well, the whole concept of any insurance business is to have more people paying in than paying out. Otherwise you would never make money, which is ultimately why they're in business. When it no longer makes money it then qualifies as a gov't program/ponzi scheme.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top