Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
outside the mandate, point to which part of the law you actually disagree with. specifically the section. i can guarantee you havent read a single word of it.More crapp claims from the left.
We'll see what the SCOTUS says. It is unfortunate for the left (but good for America) that this garbage can be overturned and all the trash that followed it put in the dump.
There is no explaining the disdain that nutters have for the idea of a healthy society.
can you point out the specific section of the law that state this?outside the mandate, point to which part of the law you actually disagree with. specifically the section. i can guarantee you havent read a single word of it.More crapp claims from the left.
We'll see what the SCOTUS says. It is unfortunate for the left (but good for America) that this garbage can be overturned and all the trash that followed it put in the dump.
The part where you have to claim gold purchases over $500 at tax time. Or how about the part where you have to pay a heavy sales tax if you sell a house. How these two have anything to do with healthcare is beyond me, but they are in there. Just two small things that nancy pelosi said we would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
so any time the courts make a decision you disagree with its "judicial activism" but when you agree with it, its correct?"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"
there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
heres another interesting ruling from 2011:
Supreme Court Commerce Clause | Supreme Court ruling hints of difficulty for Obama insurance law foes - Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court may not be so anxious to rein in Congress' broad power to pass regulatory laws under the Constitution's commerce clause, the key point of dispute in the pending court battles over President Obama's health insurance law.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices turned down a constitutional challenge to a 2002 law that makes it a federal crime for a felon to have body armor or a bulletproof vest.
The majority's decision, rendered without comment, could make it more difficult for those challenging health insurance reform to win court orders overturning parts of the new law.
"The federal power claimed is the authority to regulate anything from the possession of French fries to the local theft of a Hershey's Kiss," argued lawyers for Cedrick Alderman, a Seattle man who appealed the body-armor law.
But the lower courts had upheld the law. The Supreme Court considered the appeal over several monthsbut rejected it Monday in Alderman vs. United States.
Alderman's appeal concerned only whether Congress had the power to enact a law regulating the possession of a product in this instance, body armor.
based on precedent such as this, there is a high likely hood that the court will uphold the mandate.
Judicial activism at it's best.
that same ruling was upheld by the appeals court as well. guess it wasnt activism after all.examples please
How about the judge in California who overturned the peoples vote on gay marriage. That there is a prime example of judicial activism in favor of what the judge considered social justice.
Prop 8, California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Declared Unconstitutional
California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned | Reuters
can you point out the specific section of the law that state this?outside the mandate, point to which part of the law you actually disagree with. specifically the section. i can guarantee you havent read a single word of it.
The part where you have to claim gold purchases over $500 at tax time. Or how about the part where you have to pay a heavy sales tax if you sell a house. How these two have anything to do with healthcare is beyond me, but they are in there. Just two small things that nancy pelosi said we would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
oh thats right, cause they arent in the bill.
so any time the courts make a decision you disagree with its "judicial activism" but when you agree with it, its correct?"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"
there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
heres another interesting ruling from 2011:
Supreme Court Commerce Clause | Supreme Court ruling hints of difficulty for Obama insurance law foes - Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court may not be so anxious to rein in Congress' broad power to pass regulatory laws under the Constitution's commerce clause, the key point of dispute in the pending court battles over President Obama's health insurance law.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices turned down a constitutional challenge to a 2002 law that makes it a federal crime for a felon to have body armor or a bulletproof vest.
The majority's decision, rendered without comment, could make it more difficult for those challenging health insurance reform to win court orders overturning parts of the new law.
"The federal power claimed is the authority to regulate anything from the possession of French fries to the local theft of a Hershey's Kiss," argued lawyers for Cedrick Alderman, a Seattle man who appealed the body-armor law.
But the lower courts had upheld the law. The Supreme Court considered the appeal over several monthsbut rejected it Monday in Alderman vs. United States.
Alderman's appeal concerned only whether Congress had the power to enact a law regulating the possession of a product in this instance, body armor.
based on precedent such as this, there is a high likely hood that the court will uphold the mandate.
Judicial activism at it's best.
only a wing nut can make that argument.
so any time the courts make a decision you disagree with its "judicial activism" but when you agree with it, its correct?"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"
there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
heres another interesting ruling from 2011:
Supreme Court Commerce Clause | Supreme Court ruling hints of difficulty for Obama insurance law foes - Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court may not be so anxious to rein in Congress' broad power to pass regulatory laws under the Constitution's commerce clause, the key point of dispute in the pending court battles over President Obama's health insurance law.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices turned down a constitutional challenge to a 2002 law that makes it a federal crime for a felon to have body armor or a bulletproof vest.
The majority's decision, rendered without comment, could make it more difficult for those challenging health insurance reform to win court orders overturning parts of the new law.
"The federal power claimed is the authority to regulate anything from the possession of French fries to the local theft of a Hershey's Kiss," argued lawyers for Cedrick Alderman, a Seattle man who appealed the body-armor law.
But the lower courts had upheld the law. The Supreme Court considered the appeal over several monthsbut rejected it Monday in Alderman vs. United States.
Alderman's appeal concerned only whether Congress had the power to enact a law regulating the possession of a product in this instance, body armor.
based on precedent such as this, there is a high likely hood that the court will uphold the mandate.
Judicial activism at it's best.
only a wing nut can make that argument.
can you point out the specific section of the law that state this?outside the mandate, point to which part of the law you actually disagree with. specifically the section. i can guarantee you havent read a single word of it.
The part where you have to claim gold purchases over $500 at tax time. Or how about the part where you have to pay a heavy sales tax if you sell a house. How these two have anything to do with healthcare is beyond me, but they are in there. Just two small things that nancy pelosi said we would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
oh thats right, cause they arent in the bill.
That's what Medicaid was designed for.I didn't change the debate. I asked about care. You're the one that wanted to pretend emergency care is the beginning and end of treatment. Community clinics are not an answer for chronic illness. They treat colds and sprained ankles, but they don't have the resources to provide treatment for diabetes and cancer. That's today, much less in a world where more employers are dropping coverage.
Any other asinine comments?
So you support Medicaid, including its expansion under so-called Obamacare?
Amazing.
so any time the courts make a decision you disagree with its "judicial activism" but when you agree with it, its correct?Judicial activism at it's best.
only a wing nut can make that argument.
I did not say that, you did. While you are putting words in my mouth order me lunch as well.
Any ruling that infringes on an individuals right to prosperity I am completely against. Any ruling that goes against the constitution I am against. Do you have a garden at home? If so how would you like it if the government came in and declared that garden to be theirs? a garden that YOU planted to feed your family on? That's basically what they did with wicker V filburn, and dont think that since that set court precedent that they could not use that as precedent to come and get yours as well. That is why judicial activism needs to be kept in check, it sets precedent for future generations to lose even more rights and freedoms.
Can you offer another explanation?
Exploded? That doesn't undermine my statement in the least. All you've shown is that the rates are higher among blacks, not that it's higher because they're black, which was your original claim.
Oh you so agree with every single thing Grunt says?so any time the courts make a decision you disagree with its "judicial activism" but when you agree with it, its correct?
only a wing nut can make that argument.
I did not say that, you did. While you are putting words in my mouth order me lunch as well.
Any ruling that infringes on an individuals right to prosperity I am completely against. Any ruling that goes against the constitution I am against. Do you have a garden at home? If so how would you like it if the government came in and declared that garden to be theirs? a garden that YOU planted to feed your family on? That's basically what they did with wicker V filburn, and dont think that since that set court precedent that they could not use that as precedent to come and get yours as well. That is why judicial activism needs to be kept in check, it sets precedent for future generations to lose even more rights and freedoms.
I trhink he left in shame. All he knows about the healthcare law is what he hears on TV.....and then he tried to criticize Y(OU for talking about something that is in there that he wasnt aware of.
If it were me? I would likely sign off for good.
That be embarrasing.
OK, Ypou asked a question and I answered it.
Now you want to change the debate.
There are community clinics that treat chronic illness.
Now you'll ask about meds. Dems will not be satisfied until everything remotely "medical" is "free."
I didn't change the debate. I asked about care. You're the one that wanted to pretend emergency care is the beginning and end of treatment. Community clinics are not an answer for chronic illness. They treat colds and sprained ankles, but they don't have the resources to provide treatment for diabetes and cancer. That's today, much less in a world where more employers are dropping coverage.
That's what Medicaid was designed for.
Any other asinine comments?
Can you offer another explanation?Exploded? That doesn't undermine my statement in the least. All you've shown is that the rates are higher among blacks, not that it's higher because they're black, which was your original claim.
Another poster did so earlier in this thread: higher rates of poverty.
who is saying it isnt interstae commerce.
It is.
What does that have to do with Government forcing you to buy something under penalty of law?
When has that ever happened before?
And to add....we now ALSO have government forcing a bhusiness owner to offer a service even if it doesnt want to.
When has THAT ever happened before?
What service are businesses being forced to offer?
Health insurance.
Oh you so agree with every single thing Grunt says?I did not say that, you did. While you are putting words in my mouth order me lunch as well.
Any ruling that infringes on an individuals right to prosperity I am completely against. Any ruling that goes against the constitution I am against. Do you have a garden at home? If so how would you like it if the government came in and declared that garden to be theirs? a garden that YOU planted to feed your family on? That's basically what they did with wicker V filburn, and dont think that since that set court precedent that they could not use that as precedent to come and get yours as well. That is why judicial activism needs to be kept in check, it sets precedent for future generations to lose even more rights and freedoms.
I trhink he left in shame. All he knows about the healthcare law is what he hears on TV.....and then he tried to criticize Y(OU for talking about something that is in there that he wasnt aware of.
If it were me? I would likely sign off for good.
That be embarrasing.
Sorry, just chanelling the "debate technique" of Syphon and other losers around here.
That's what Medicaid was designed for.I didn't change the debate. I asked about care. You're the one that wanted to pretend emergency care is the beginning and end of treatment. Community clinics are not an answer for chronic illness. They treat colds and sprained ankles, but they don't have the resources to provide treatment for diabetes and cancer. That's today, much less in a world where more employers are dropping coverage.
Any other asinine comments?
So you support Medicaid, including its expansion under so-called Obamacare?
Amazing.
The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.
examples please
How about the judge in California who overturned the peoples vote on gay marriage. That there is a prime example of judicial activism in favor of what the judge considered social justice.
that same ruling was upheld by the appeals court as well. guess it wasnt activism after all.How about the judge in California who overturned the peoples vote on gay marriage. That there is a prime example of judicial activism in favor of what the judge considered social justice.
Prop 8, California's Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Declared Unconstitutional
California gay marriage ban overturned, appeal planned | Reuters
The people voted, the judge overruled the people. It is a constitutional violation by the judge, and it was judicial activism, it does not matter what the appeals court said or did not say. That was a states issue to decide, and the people decided against it, the judge had no right to go against the people other than his own view of social justice.
