U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare

[goldcatt]

Why do I want them to rule that it is? Because it is bad law. Do I think they will? No. Do I think that those who are attempting to get it overturned have any hope at all of succeeding no.

One need not think that a bad law is unconstitutional in order to hope that it gets over turned.

Immie

I do think it's bad law in its policy, but the COTUS doesn't care whether a policy is smart. Intelligence (or lack thereof) in policy is a legislative function.

Policy comes and goes, but what the COTUS protects is the balance of power and the framework of governance. I simply can't agree that it would be a good thing to apply that kind of activism and hope it's declared unconstitutional under a fiction just to get rid of the policy when what will be affected is much, much more. The bench is already too politicized.

We've been living with judicial activism for decades and now you want to stop it?

Immie

Depends what you consider activism. Ruling based on precedent rather than strict construction of the language? No, I don't see that as activist under my preferred method of interpretation. Hoping the Justices manufacture a fiction in order to get rid of a policy I disagree with but don't see as a constitutional violation, thereby setting precedent that will be followed and built on in future? Yep, I see that as a problem.

 

[goldcatt]

Why do I want them to rule that it is? Because it is bad law. Do I think they will? No. Do I think that those who are attempting to get it overturned have any hope at all of succeeding no.

One need not think that a bad law is unconstitutional in order to hope that it gets over turned.

Immie

I do think it's bad law in its policy, but the COTUS doesn't care whether a policy is smart. Intelligence (or lack thereof) in policy is a legislative function.

Policy comes and goes, but what the COTUS protects is the balance of power and the framework of governance. I simply can't agree that it would be a good thing to apply that kind of activism and hope it's declared unconstitutional under a fiction just to get rid of the policy when what will be affected is much, much more. The bench is already too politicized.

We aren't really debating 'bad law' here though are we? There have always been good and bad laws in our society that are generally rectified by demands of the people who are approving or offended by them.

Constitutional Law is something quite different and effects the unalienable, civil, and legal rights of every man, woman, and child in the USA. It is NOT the prerogative of the courts and SCOTUS to rule on whether there should or should not be healthcare reform however or what the final legislation should look like.

Legislation that violates rights, however, which the healthcare reform bill does, should not be allowed to stand. It is absolutely the prerogative of the lower courts and SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of the portions of that bill that trample on the people's individual rights.

We had best hope that there are still judges of integrity sitting on the bench of the lower and higher courts who understand those principles.

What Constitutionally recognized and protected right does it violate?

The 9th is ignored, ambiguous and basically meaningless. The 10th if taken to its proponents' logical conclusion would simply allow the individual States to set up their own mini fiefdoms that violate individual liberties without accountability to any cohesive unit or higher authority. What is left? Does it violate speech? Religion? Censor the press? Take away your guns? Violate your due process?

 

[csbarry]

Let's see; independent judicial analyst or former White House council to President Clinton; who might be the unbiased one here? It's a no brainer!

 

[Immanuel]

I do think it's bad law in its policy, but the COTUS doesn't care whether a policy is smart. Intelligence (or lack thereof) in policy is a legislative function.

Policy comes and goes, but what the COTUS protects is the balance of power and the framework of governance. I simply can't agree that it would be a good thing to apply that kind of activism and hope it's declared unconstitutional under a fiction just to get rid of the policy when what will be affected is much, much more. The bench is already too politicized.

We've been living with judicial activism for decades and now you want to stop it?

Immie

Depends what you consider activism. Ruling based on precedent rather than strict construction of the language? No, I don't see that as activist under my preferred method of interpretation. Hoping the Justices manufacture a fiction in order to get rid of a policy I disagree with but don't see as a constitutional violation, thereby setting precedent that will be followed and built on in future? Yep, I see that as a problem.

Actually, I don't think I said that I hoped the Justices manufactured a fiction in order to get rid of a policy... did I?

I said that I hoped they found it unconstitutional. Which if they did, I would assume they had a reason for doing so. One that I don't presently understand.

Immie

 

[goldcatt]

We've been living with judicial activism for decades and now you want to stop it?

Immie

Depends what you consider activism. Ruling based on precedent rather than strict construction of the language? No, I don't see that as activist under my preferred method of interpretation. Hoping the Justices manufacture a fiction in order to get rid of a policy I disagree with but don't see as a constitutional violation, thereby setting precedent that will be followed and built on in future? Yep, I see that as a problem.

Actually, I don't think I said that I hoped the Justices manufactured a fiction in order to get rid of a policy... did I?

I said that I hoped they found it unconstitutional. Which if they did, I would assume they had a reason for doing so. One that I don't presently understand.

Immie

Then that's different.

 

[Immanuel]

Depends what you consider activism. Ruling based on precedent rather than strict construction of the language? No, I don't see that as activist under my preferred method of interpretation. Hoping the Justices manufacture a fiction in order to get rid of a policy I disagree with but don't see as a constitutional violation, thereby setting precedent that will be followed and built on in future? Yep, I see that as a problem.

Actually, I don't think I said that I hoped the Justices manufactured a fiction in order to get rid of a policy... did I?

I said that I hoped they found it unconstitutional. Which if they did, I would assume they had a reason for doing so. One that I don't presently understand.

Immie

Then that's different.

Thank you.

I don't know that they will find it unconstitutional. I can see arguments that claim it to be so. As much as I would like to believe that it will be found unconstitutional, I don't know that it will be.

I said in another thread a couple of days ago that I was going to assume it would not happen... that way I would not be heart broken if it didn't... thrilled if it was... and I would not jinx the outcome.

Immie

 

[goldcatt]

Actually, I don't think I said that I hoped the Justices manufactured a fiction in order to get rid of a policy... did I?

I said that I hoped they found it unconstitutional. Which if they did, I would assume they had a reason for doing so. One that I don't presently understand.

Immie

Then that's different.

Thank you.

I don't know that they will find it unconstitutional. I can see arguments that claim it to be so. As much as I would like to believe that it will be found unconstitutional, I don't know that it will be.

I said in another thread a couple of days ago that I was going to assume it would not happen... that way I would not be heart broken if it didn't... thrilled if it was... and I would not jinx the outcome.

Immie

I just don't see it happening.

The arguments being made have been made too many times before, with too much settled precedent against them. The 10th has been argued over...and over....and over again. This is going to have to be changed and fixed by the Legislative process, and I hope it is.

As-is it's not going to work to bring down costs, it amounts to billions in corporate welfare, and there are way too many exceptions and opt-outs on the individual level. All designed very carefully to fit previous USSC decisions, so they'll allow the so-called mandate to pass muster.

Using the 16th as their vehicle was smart, very smart, as there is no limitation I know of that would make this income tax a violation. Unfortunately, it looks like we're stuck with this until and unless we get a Congress with the balls to stand up to the lobbyists who wrote this piece of caca. Which will happen when we get real campaign finance reform...and that's less and less likely. Some days I wonder how the hell we got here.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?

The mandate tp purchase insurance is not a tax.

The tax is the means of enforcing the mandate.

The income tax is a mandate, the enforcement of the income tax is confiscation of property, garnishing of wages and imprisonment.

 

[Foxfyre]

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

I believe the way this particular bill is constructed it is unworkable and unsustainable, but set that aside for the moment.

Regarding mandates in general enforced as a tax on income not to exceed a certain amount, how in your opinion is this unconstitutional? What language, clause or precedent limits the Federal government's power to tax income in a manner that would bar this method of enforcement?

The mandate tp purchase insurance is not a tax.

The tax is the means of enforcing the mandate.

The income tax is a mandate, the enforcement of the income tax is confiscation of property, garnishing of wages and imprisonment.

There seems some confusion over what constitutes a mandate and what constitutes a tax.

A tax is collected by the government for a specific purpose however vague that purpose might be. It is applied uniformly across the land and is paid by all citizens and/or resident persons presumably without prejudice, ambiguity, or judgment.

A mandate is an order for somebody to do something, comply with something, produce something, or otherwise act on something. A mandate to acquire or purchase healthcare insurance is NOT a tax no matter how loosely 'tax' is defined and no matter how costly is compliance with the mandate. The government doesn't collect monies uniformly from the people in order to provide healthcare. Any fines collected for non compliance or failure to purchase healthcare are fines that also are not uniformly applied to all without prejudice, ambiguity, or judgment. Muddying the waters even further, and even moreso making the mandates and fines not a tax, is the fact that they are applied selectively to certain groups while other groups are excluded.

And THAT is why I think the 16th amendment or the commerce clause will be no defense for the Federal Government to use in countering lawsuits against this unconstitutional healthcare legislation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's a tax. Federal government can tax. 'nuff said.

The health insurance mandate is not a tax.

The tax is the enforcement of the mandate.

 

[JWBooth]

U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare

Just like they did Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...

I ain't holding my breath.

 

[Skull Pilot]

U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare

Just like they did Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...

I ain't holding my breath.

The government collects taxes to be applied to those programs. The government does not force you to seek those services from a private business. There is a difference

 

[Immanuel]

U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare

Just like they did Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...

I ain't holding my breath.

The government collects taxes to be applied to those programs. The government does not force you to seek those services from a private business. There is a difference

Which will only give them a reason, IF (big if) this is over turned to come back with a single payer plan and force us to pay taxes in order to receive health benefits... {shivers}

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Just like they did Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...

I ain't holding my breath.

The government collects taxes to be applied to those programs. The government does not force you to seek those services from a private business. There is a difference

Which will only give them a reason, IF (big if) this is over turned to come back with a single payer plan and force us to pay taxes in order to receive health benefits... {shivers}

Immie

That's a given Immie. Obama is on record that he wants a single payer system and he told his loyal constiuents well before the election that it would have to be done incrementally. So, the healthcare boondoggle that just passed which nobody, including Obama, believes will do a damn thing to improve overall healthcare or make it more affordable, is the first step. When it doesn't work as they know it won't, that is their license to move to the next phase eventually arriving at a single payer system.

The insurance companies have been bought off for now, but unless we elect enough conservatives to Congress to turn this around, all private insurance providers will be toast within the next four or five years. And some bureaucrat in Washington DC will be deciding what healthcare you and your loved ones will be allowed which will effectively shut down any serious or organized dissent lest those same bureaucrats retaliate against you and/or your loved ones.

This is a scary scenario any way you look at it.

 

[boedicca]

One important point is that the Commerce Clause has always covered regulating active commerce - not compelling inactive people to engaging in it.

Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

Some of them want the government to be able to force us to do anything. Of course, they expect to be the ones who are deciding what we are forced to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Until now.

One big step for Democrats; on giant step towards the elimination of individual freedoms.

Immie

And that's the part I simply can't understand why so many are embracing this legislation. Can't they understand that if government can force us to purchase healthcare insurance, the government can force us to do anything? A terrible precedent is being set here that simply should be abomination and unacceptable to anybody who values the freedoms the Constitution is suppose to secure and defend.

Some of them want the government to be able to force us to do anything. Of course, they expect to be the ones who are deciding what we are forced to do.

And that's the other scary thing. So many of these people TRUST this outfit that has demonstrated so often that so much of what they say has little or nothing to do with what they intend to do. How do they continue to put their faith in people like that? Maybe a large part of America has been brainwashed and is no konger capable of critical thought or objective evaluation.

 

[boedicca]

Why do you think Progressive took over lower and higher education and the mainstream media?

 

[logical4u]

Maybe it will come down to...how the SCOUS justices feel about being lectured at Obama's January speech. If they are afraid of him, they won't hear it; if they want to give him a lesson in manners, they will.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe it will come down to...how the SCOUS justices feel about being lectured at Obama's January speech. If they are afraid of him, they won't hear it; if they want to give him a lesson in manners, they will.

I hope they'll hear it because good attorneys accurately identified the Constitutional problems with the legislation and competently presented the case to the high court.

While I sympathise with your sentiment here, I don't want to believe that our high court, at least with its current makeup, would be swayed by personal grievances or would fear for their lives or personal safety/security or that of their loved ones, because that is the only way the President could hurt them.

 

[Immanuel]

The government collects taxes to be applied to those programs. The government does not force you to seek those services from a private business. There is a difference

Which will only give them a reason, IF (big if) this is over turned to come back with a single payer plan and force us to pay taxes in order to receive health benefits... {shivers}

Immie

That's a given Immie. Obama is on record that he wants a single payer system and he told his loyal constiuents well before the election that it would have to be done incrementally. So, the healthcare boondoggle that just passed which nobody, including Obama, believes will do a damn thing to improve overall healthcare or make it more affordable, is the first step. When it doesn't work as they know it won't, that is their license to move to the next phase eventually arriving at a single payer system.

The insurance companies have been bought off for now, but unless we elect enough conservatives to Congress to turn this around, all private insurance providers will be toast within the next four or five years. And some bureaucrat in Washington DC will be deciding what healthcare you and your loved ones will be allowed which will effectively shut down any serious or organized dissent lest those same bureaucrats retaliate against you and/or your loved ones.

This is a scary scenario any way you look at it.

Four or five years might be a little optimistic. Candidate Obama said within twenty years. I think he's ahead of schedule, but I don't think four or five years is realistic.

Immie