Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

[paulitician]

[

that's kind of funny... because all the individual mandate does is require that people purchase insurance .

Oh, that's all? The government will now make buying something a requirement for citizenship? The Commerce Clause was never intended to be stretched that far.

Unfortunately these are the kinds of people we're dealing with. They'll cheerlead for anything the Government does just as long as it's their guys doing it. Fining and imprisoning American Citizens for not having Health Insurance really is sadly Un-American. The Mandate should be ruled Unconstitutional.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is one significant hurdle here.

The Supreme Court must first rule whether or not the plaintiffs have standing to sue. Here's the problem no one has actually been forced to purchase insurance yet and no one has been fined for not purchasing insurance yet.

In other words no one's ox has as of yet been gored. So it very well could be ruled that this case has been brought too soon and the SC cannot rule on what might happen as it is prohibited from advisory rulings.

If it is decided that there is no standing then the case goes no further.

This is why one of the federal judges ruled that the case could not be decided till 2015 after the mandate has been in effect for a year. However by 2015, the healthcare exchanges will be in operation and there will no turning back.

Not necessarily. The mandate could be declared unconstitutional even if the exchanges are set up.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Bullshit.

The mandate is designed EXACTLY to raise revenue. Everyone has to be in it and made to pay for it.

I guess it could be argued that the mandate is designed to raise revenues FOR PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Now for the idiots that will take what I said out of context, I am not calling for anyone to shoot anyone, take up arms shot the president or what ever wets your dream. I am stating a fact when voting does not help bullets will. When you create laws to enslave people they will resist when they have had enough.

One, we're not there yet. We're not even in the same international calling code as that yet.

Two: I'd be careful. No, you're not inciting or advocating violence. You're spelling out what you think the consequences will be, much like my my post here that netted me some neg rep. However, the line gets blurry the stronger the language gets. There's always idiots that will take a warning that an action will bring violence as a call for violence. The real danger for you personally is if one of those that misinterprets what you posted turns out to be a Secret Service agent.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This is why one of the federal judges ruled that the case could not be decided till 2015 after the mandate has been in effect for a year. However by 2015, the healthcare exchanges will be in operation and there will no turning back.

Even at that point, you can turn it around. We were able in integrate public schools and bust up existing monopolies, so I'm pretty sure we can dissolve the exchanges if the ruling comes back they're unconstitutional.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You HAVE due process in matters regarding tickets and any state that seeks to take it away I submit that state would soon find it's cameras turned off and issuing refunds much like Arizona has had to do.

No, in most cases you don't. Again, because they are treated as CIVIL violations, there's no criminal process. There is no ticket to "dismiss" because there is no trial of any kind. It's a civil violation, often with no remedy available.

On the donations side again I will point to you on matters of engaging in those activities by choice!!

Buying health insurance will still be no less by choice than buying an SUV. Please don't misunderstand me, I think the health care bill is entirely inappropriate. But I simply do not see a bill of attainder argument succeeding, nor do I see any success in any other claim to declare it unconstitutional. This is a battle that will have to be fought in the legislature, to repeal the measure, or replace it with a much better alternative.

 

[Flopper]

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial. punishments can include (fines). A fine would be even an even more egregious method of forcing someone to comply with the law

But where is the lack of judicial due process in the HC bill?



You can't call it the same thing. If you do, then the entire tax code is a bill of attainder for the reasons I mentioned above. I seriously doubt the SCOTUS would be willing to entertain that argument.



I know for a fact it isn't so when it comes to red light cameras in at least many places, and I would wager the vast majority thereof. The citations that are issued for what these cameras pick up are generally legislated as non-criminal civil violations against the municipality. As such, the burden of proof is much lower, and the citation usually is legislatively declared non-rebuttable prima facie evidence. There is no remedy for a person under such conditions. You can only pay the fine, or get your car impounded when you fail to pay the fine. I don't agree with it in the slightest bit. It's just what happens.

As for donations, you are speaking of actions in which citizens take or do not take upon their own free will. so for example, I choose or DO not choose to purchase an SUV so am subjected to the taxes accordingly on it, if I do so, the same is applicable on donations as it applies to whatever benefits you get from it. The reverse is true for the HC Law, in that one has no choice but to have healthcare and in not doing so they are subject to a fine.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. The tax code creates all kinds of way to reduce one's tax burden through various methods, such as donating to a church, or even at one point there was a tax break for purchasing an SUV. Your theory would deem these measures as a bill of attainder because they punish a class of citizens, without trial, for not spending their money in certain ways.

H.C. Bill
The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

still further;

Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage in 2016 are subject to a penalty equal to the greater of: (1) 2.5 percent of household income in excess of the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year over the threshold amount of income required for income tax return filing for that taxpayer under section 6012(a)(1);67 or (2) $695 per uninsured adult in the household. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee for an adult. The total household penalty may not exceed 300 percent of the per adult penalty ($2,085). The total annual household payment may not exceed the national average annual premium for bronze level health plan offered through the Exchange that year for the household size…

That is a declaration of guilt, and as it is not subject to civil or criminal Code you have no recourse in the courts. There is your lack of due process. As for the tax code your answer is simple, the difference is one chooses to engage in commerce, a job, activities that then are subjected to those taxes. In so doing if those taxes meet constiutional criteria then they are subject to them, however if that person chooses no to engage in those activities then they are NOT subject to them. With the HC Bill they have NO choice but to participate and if they do not, then they are subject to a fine and or tax call it what you will. As for the ticket, I invite you to read the following,

In an appeal decided April 5, 2011, Judge Peter J. Cahill of the Gila County Superior Court, found that a photo radar ticket issued by Star Valley to Michele Power was faulty. Based on the lack of foundation in certifying the ticket, the judge overturned the trial court judge’s fine and sent the case back to the Star Valley Court with orders to dismiss the ticket. Michele Power handled her case in court and on appeal based on the fact that the ticket was issued without anyone identifying the driver before issuing the ticket.

You HAVE due process in matters regarding tickets and any state that seeks to take it away I submit that state would soon find it's cameras turned off and issuing refunds much like Arizona has had to do.

On the donations side again I will point to you on matters of engaging in those activities by choice!!

I doubt anyone is ever going to pay this fine. I suspect that an executive order will be issued that suspends the collection for one reason or another. I also expect that health insurance will become a condition of employment at many companies if not all. For the employer, a larger number of employees in the group will result in better and more stable rates. The fact that government requires people to have health insurance will encourage employers to follow suit.

Maybe I'm being overly optimist, but I believe there will come a time when every person will be able have the health care they need.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I doubt anyone is ever going to pay this fine. I suspect that an executive order will be issued that suspends the collection for one reason or another. I also expect that health insurance will become a condition of employment at many companies if not all. For the employer, a larger number of employees in the group will result in better and more stable rates. The fact that government requires people to have health insurance will encourage employers to follow suit.

Maybe I'm being overly optimist, but I believe there will come a time when every person will be able have the health care they need.

The scenario you've just described sure doesn't get us closer to that goal. If anything it'll move us farther away. If companies start making heath care coverage a prerequisite for employment, not only would that eliminate employer health care benefits (if you already have it, why would you buy more?) but it'll create INSTITUTIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT.

If you can't afford health care, but can't get a job because you don't have health care, things are going to get VERY UGLY in this country. It will have the effect of legislating a caste system that will result in increased poverty and homelessness greatly. And eventually enough people will get tired enough that the current Occupy movement will pale in comparison. Except that those people will truly have nothing to lose.

 

[Flopper]

This is why one of the federal judges ruled that the case could not be decided till 2015 after the mandate has been in effect for a year. However by 2015, the healthcare exchanges will be in operation and there will no turning back.

Even at that point, you can turn it around. We were able in integrate public schools and bust up existing monopolies, so I'm pretty sure we can dissolve the exchanges if the ruling comes back they're unconstitutional.

When I say no turning back, I mean it will be politically impractical. The insurance companies would fight it. The tens of millions that are able to get coverage will certainly fight it. Most people would not want to go back to the old days when insurance companies could deny and cancel coverage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This conservative court has supported some big government legislation, and Robets, Scalia, and maybe one or two others may go with the four libs. Alito will get the minority opinion.

 

[Navy1960]

You HAVE due process in matters regarding tickets and any state that seeks to take it away I submit that state would soon find it's cameras turned off and issuing refunds much like Arizona has had to do.

No, in most cases you don't. Again, because they are treated as CIVIL violations, there's no criminal process. There is no ticket to "dismiss" because there is no trial of any kind. It's a civil violation, often with no remedy available.

On the donations side again I will point to you on matters of engaging in those activities by choice!!

Buying health insurance will still be no less by choice than buying an SUV. Please don't misunderstand me, I think the health care bill is entirely inappropriate. But I simply do not see a bill of attainder argument succeeding, nor do I see any success in any other claim to declare it unconstitutional. This is a battle that will have to be fought in the legislature, to repeal the measure, or replace it with a much better alternative.

Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 708 (1884). "Due process of law is [process which], following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case and just to the parties affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and whenever necessary to the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought. Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or custom or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law." Id. at 708; Accord, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 537 (1884).


VII Amendment sic.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

While the rules are somewhat different, your right to due process is not non existant. As for the SUV vs. the H.C. Bill of course there is a big difference, in that if the same standards were applied to SUV's let's say then you would have one heck of a LOT more SUV's on the road than you would now because people would not have the choice to buy or not to buy them. As for the bill itself, I tend to be of the opinion that the court will keep most of the H.C. bill intact however this particular section of the bill if any part should be struck down will be it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You HAVE due process in matters regarding tickets and any state that seeks to take it away I submit that state would soon find it's cameras turned off and issuing refunds much like Arizona has had to do.

No, in most cases you don't. Again, because they are treated as CIVIL violations, there's no criminal process. There is no ticket to "dismiss" because there is no trial of any kind. It's a civil violation, often with no remedy available.

On the donations side again I will point to you on matters of engaging in those activities by choice!!

Buying health insurance will still be no less by choice than buying an SUV. Please don't misunderstand me, I think the health care bill is entirely inappropriate. But I simply do not see a bill of attainder argument succeeding, nor do I see any success in any other claim to declare it unconstitutional. This is a battle that will have to be fought in the legislature, to repeal the measure, or replace it with a much better alternative.

Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 708 (1884). "Due process of law is [process which], following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case and just to the parties affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and whenever necessary to the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought. Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or custom or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law." Id. at 708; Accord, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 537 (1884).


VII Amendment sic.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

While the rules are somewhat different, your right to due process is not non existant. As for the SUV vs. the H.C. Bill of course there is a big difference, in that if the same standards were applied to SUV's let's say then you would have one heck of a LOT more SUV's on the road than you would now because people would not have the choice to buy or not to buy them. As for the bill itself, I tend to be of the opinion that the court will keep most of the H.C. bill intact however this particular section of the bill if any part should be struck down will be it.

Probably so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

not that ultimately the court will do what it's supposed to given the ethically challenged thomas and scalia, but we can hope.

Says she who openly lies about her law degree and practice of law pursuant to same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you look at most of the cases on this, it has gone from one side to the other, but in general, it would seen pretty clear, at least in my humble opinion that there is no more clear example of a "Bill of Attainder" than using a tax to punish people who do not purchase a good or service, especially if they do not have recourse in the courts.

Exactly.
On what basis are people who decide to not buy/get insurance being punished?
Did they commit a crime? Where's the trial?
Is it a civil penalty? What cost have they incurred to the government?

 

[Chris]

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.

His wife made the money not him so why should he recuse himself?

 

[Londoner]

Most people would not want to go back to the old days when insurance companies could deny and cancel coverage.

I think people are having a hard time understanding the power of movement conservatism.

In the 80s, Reagan shifted America from a middle class nation (broadly shared wealth) to one of concentrated wealth. Admittedly, this was not the intent of Reaganomics. The intent was to reduce the tax and regulatory burden on capital on the advertised premise that all boats would be lifted by better incentives which would translate into higher rates of efficiency and investment - which would lead to innovation and jobs.

"If I get to keep more of what I earn, I have a greater incentive to invest and add jobs."

Here is the problem. The movement itself has outlived its utility. The system has absorbed 30 years of tax cuts and deregulation - these incentives are no longer translating into jobs. Now the problem is one of middle class demand, which has been destroyed by the never-mentioned affect of longterm Reaganomics, which gives capital unbridled freedom in the form of neoliberal globalization, which translates into the loss of jobs/benefits/social programs/safety nets as capital forces American labor to compete with Asian sweat shops. The result is this: the middle class cannot consume without unhealthy levels of debt. This is not a cyclical problem, it is a genuine crisis. A deep flaw. Preserving health care monopolies - which the supreme court is getting ready to do - will be the final nail in the coffin of middle class consumption.

The conservative movement - bent on giving capital the power to create cheap labor across the globe - has filled the Supreme Court with pro-business jurists. The Conservative Supreme Court believes that business - the free unregulated profit motive - should govern every area of American life. They are now preparing to strike down the Health Care Law because it challenges the monopoly of the insurance industry. The final stage of capitalism is monopolization - monopolization of energy, health care, politics and media. Monopolization of the legal system. The revolution has been a success.

The Supreme Court will now be striking down laws in defense of monopolies. The middle class will now have to bankrupt itself further on health care. Goodbye middle class consumption. Goodbye economy. Conservatism has won.

 

[Chris]

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

And in the meantime both of them enjoy government sponsored healthcare for free.

His wife made the money not him so why should he recuse himself?

Because it's a conflict of interest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife enjoyed $1.6 million dollars in personal income as a result of her role working for groups that led the opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act.
Will he recuse himself for conflict of interest?

Since his -wife- made the money, there's no conflict of interest.
:shrug:

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court will now be striking down laws in defense of monopolies.

The supreme court will strike down this law because it violates the Constitution..