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.
It is when 70% of the population did not want this.. He needs to listen to WE THE PEOPLEAnd whats the problem exactly? It's wrong to spread information to the people?
It is when 70% of the population did not want this.. He needs to listen to WE THE PEOPLEAnd whats the problem exactly? It's wrong to spread information to the people?
It is when 70% of the population did not want this.. He needs to listen to WE THE PEOPLEAnd whats the problem exactly? It's wrong to spread information to the people?
U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner said in a 53-page opinion that the federal government's power to regulate commerce did not give it the authority to compel individual citizens to purchase products against their will. The lawsuit was filed by a married couple from Etters in York County against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, asking that the law be overturned. The couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman, 48, and Gregory Bachman, 56, said they dropped their health-care coverage because of the expense - more than their monthly mortgage payments.
The couple, who operate a bait-and-tackle and marine engine-repair shop, said they preferred to pay for their health care out of pocket. "The nation undoubtedly faces a health-care crisis . . . and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant," Conner said. "The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress' efforts to remedy the ailing health-care and health-insurance markets must fit squarely within those powers." The case is one of several dozen lawsuits playing out in various jurisdictions challenging the constitutionality of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, which seeks to provide health-insurance coverage to the 40-plus million Americans without insurance.
The litigation in other jurisdictions is much further advanced. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati has upheld the law, while the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta found that the requirement that individuals purchase insurance is unconstitutional. A third panel, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, rejected challenges to the act, finding that people filing suit to overturn it did not have standing. Decisions from each of those appeals courts have been appealed to the Supreme Court. The split among appeals courts substantially increases the odds that the Supreme Court will take up the matter.
Read more: Pa. judge declares key part of Obama's health plan unconstitutional | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/14/2011
Obamacare penalty struck down...
Pa. judge declares key part of Obama's health plan unconstitutional
Wed, Sep. 14, 2011 - President Obama's plan to require individual Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, a key pillar of his health-care legislation, is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner said in a 53-page opinion that the federal government's power to regulate commerce did not give it the authority to compel individual citizens to purchase products against their will. The lawsuit was filed by a married couple from Etters in York County against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, asking that the law be overturned. The couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman, 48, and Gregory Bachman, 56, said they dropped their health-care coverage because of the expense - more than their monthly mortgage payments.
The couple, who operate a bait-and-tackle and marine engine-repair shop, said they preferred to pay for their health care out of pocket. "The nation undoubtedly faces a health-care crisis . . . and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant," Conner said. "The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress' efforts to remedy the ailing health-care and health-insurance markets must fit squarely within those powers." The case is one of several dozen lawsuits playing out in various jurisdictions challenging the constitutionality of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, which seeks to provide health-insurance coverage to the 40-plus million Americans without insurance.
The litigation in other jurisdictions is much further advanced. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati has upheld the law, while the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta found that the requirement that individuals purchase insurance is unconstitutional. A third panel, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, rejected challenges to the act, finding that people filing suit to overturn it did not have standing. Decisions from each of those appeals courts have been appealed to the Supreme Court. The split among appeals courts substantially increases the odds that the Supreme Court will take up the matter.
Read more: Pa. judge declares key part of Obama's health plan unconstitutional | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/14/2011
it is when 70% of the population did not want this.. He needs to listen to we the peopleand whats the problem exactly? It's wrong to spread information to the people?
It is when 70% of the population did not want this.. He needs to listen to WE THE PEOPLEAnd whats the problem exactly? It's wrong to spread information to the people?
70%? Hardly. I think that number's a bit high; and anyway, it doesn't take into account the people who are dissatisfied with the law because they don't think it went far enough. Unfortunately, laws aren't crafted according to the wishes of the American people. If they were, then the Affordable Care Act (what you call ObamaCare) would have included a public option, since a majority of Americans (including Republicans) supported putting a public option into the law. And the same goes for taxing the rich. A majority of Americans (again, including Republicans) support higher taxes for the rich. So, since you're all about "the people", I'm sure you'll write your congressman and demand a public option and higher taxes on the rich, right?
Obamacare penalty struck down...
Pa. judge declares key part of Obama's health plan unconstitutional
Wed, Sep. 14, 2011 - President Obama's plan to require individual Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, a key pillar of his health-care legislation, is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner said in a 53-page opinion that the federal government's power to regulate commerce did not give it the authority to compel individual citizens to purchase products against their will. The lawsuit was filed by a married couple from Etters in York County against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, asking that the law be overturned. The couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman, 48, and Gregory Bachman, 56, said they dropped their health-care coverage because of the expense - more than their monthly mortgage payments.
The couple, who operate a bait-and-tackle and marine engine-repair shop, said they preferred to pay for their health care out of pocket. "The nation undoubtedly faces a health-care crisis . . . and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant," Conner said. "The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress' efforts to remedy the ailing health-care and health-insurance markets must fit squarely within those powers." The case is one of several dozen lawsuits playing out in various jurisdictions challenging the constitutionality of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, which seeks to provide health-insurance coverage to the 40-plus million Americans without insurance.
The litigation in other jurisdictions is much further advanced. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati has upheld the law, while the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta found that the requirement that individuals purchase insurance is unconstitutional. A third panel, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, rejected challenges to the act, finding that people filing suit to overturn it did not have standing. Decisions from each of those appeals courts have been appealed to the Supreme Court. The split among appeals courts substantially increases the odds that the Supreme Court will take up the matter.
Read more: Pa. judge declares key part of Obama's health plan unconstitutional | Philadelphia Inquirer | 09/14/2011
Reason you felt the need to post this in this thread?
It is when 70% of the population did not want this.. He needs to listen to WE THE PEOPLEAnd whats the problem exactly? It's wrong to spread information to the people?
Money well spent!
And whats the problem exactly? It's wrong to spread information to the people?
Other credible stories from your link...lol
Is It Too Late to Impeach Obama?
Court Tells Hawaii Officials to Explain Obamas Birth Records
Obama Needed Two Teleprompters for a Three-Minute Speech
Armed Services Chairman: Obama is Anti-Military
Economist Who Predicted the 2008 Crash Gives Chilling 2012 Forecast. See the Evidence. (Newsmax.com)
Is Obama's Just Released Birth Certificate a Fake? (1247 comments)
Criminal Complaint Details Barack Obama Birth-certificate 'Forgery' (659 comments)
Ex-CIA: 'Forged Document' Released as Birth Certificate (649 comments)
Are you starting to see the trend? Do you seriously take your link serious?
Republicans, run on reversing Obamacare. See how well that goes over.