Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two years ago, Obamacare was passed by Congress on a late-night Christmas Eve vote, with many last-minute promises made to various Congressmen to secure their votes (Obamacare will not require funding for abortions, Obamacare will reduce the cost of Health Coverage, Obamacare will let people keep the coverage they have now if they want to, etc.). After the votes, most of those promises were quickly broken by the Obama administration, but the Congressmen will not be allowed to re-cast their votes accordingly.
Lawsuits were quickly brought against various parts of the Obamacare scheme. In one, twenty-six states sued on grounds that the part of Obamacare requiring everyone to sign up or pay a penalty (the "mandate"), was unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson of the District Court of Northern Florida agreed, and also ruled that since (a) there was no language in the law saying that if one part was struck down the other parts would remain in force, and (b) the mandate was critical to the functioning of the entire Obamacare scheme, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire Obamacare scheme must also be struck down. He said at one point that if Congress could find the power to force people to buy health insurance whether they wanted it or not, then Congress must also have the power to force people to buy and eat broccoli whether they wanted it or not, on grounds that it would help the broccoli market AND would result in a healthier populace.
The District Court's ruling was appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals... and the 11th Circuit agreed with the District Court that the Mandate was unconstitutional and must be struck down. However, the 11th Circuit said that the rest of the law might still remain in force.
The Obamanites appealed to the Supreme Court, and oral arguments for that hearing begin today. They will run for an extraordinary three days, an amount of time not given to a case in the last forty years.
The Supremes will decide four different issues:
1.) In the late 1700s Congress passed the Anti-Injunction Act, which says that the courts cannot rule on a law that has not yet been fully implemented. The Supremes will decide whether this law should apply to the Obamacare case, since Obamacare imposes more and more restrictions and penalties gradually, some of whose deadlines have not yet come about. However, all of Obamacare HAS been signed into law. Can it legally be heard and ruled upon in court now?
2.) Is the mandate constitutional? Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the several states. But do they have the power to force ordinary citizens who are not currently engaged in a certain kind of commerce, to engage in it whether they want to or not?
3.) If the mandate is struck down, is the rest of Obamacare "severable"? Meaning, can the rest of Obamacare remain in force if the mandate is found unconstitutional?
4.) Obamacare also imposes heavy restrictions and regulations on states that receive Medicare funding. Is Congress exceeding the powers spelled out for it in the Constitution, and violating basic principles of Federalism (i.e. intruding upon the powers reserved to the States) by imposing those restrictions and regulations on States receiving Medicare funding?
Many people say the question of the Mandate's constitutionality, is the most important. If the mandate is struck down, even if the rest is left in place, it's generally agreed that the rest of Obamacare will collapse under its own weight, since only sick people will sign up, and will drain the system of all its resources.
Issue #4 above, may have even more far-reaching impact in the long run, than the striking down of the mandate and the resulting collapse of Obamacare's socialist scheme. Congress has long been exceeding the powers given it by the Constitution, relying on astonishingly "flexible" interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Welfare Clause to pretend the Framers intended to give Congress powers that were never written down.
If the Supreme Court rules that Congress has exceeded its powers by imposing these heavy restrictions on States receiving Medicare funding, this may have the effect of slamming to a stop the relentless expansion of Federal powers into areas reserved to the States. This would be an earth-shaking event, and may well signal the beginning of the end of Leftists' cherished desires to impose a Nanny State on the American people.
Leftist here. I'm hoping it gets struck down, simply because this abomination is NOT what us Leftists honestly wanted. This isn't UHC, this is us being forced to buy into the current broken system, which doesn't help in any way.
Two years ago, Obamacare was passed by Congress on a late-night Christmas Eve vote, with many last-minute promises made to various Congressmen to secure their votes (Obamacare will not require funding for abortions, Obamacare will reduce the cost of Health Coverage, Obamacare will let people keep the coverage they have now if they want to, etc.). After the votes, most of those promises were quickly broken by the Obama administration, but the Congressmen will not be allowed to re-cast their votes accordingly.
Lawsuits were quickly brought against various parts of the Obamacare scheme. In one, twenty-six states sued on grounds that the part of Obamacare requiring everyone to sign up or pay a penalty (the "mandate"), was unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson of the District Court of Northern Florida agreed, and also ruled that since (a) there was no language in the law saying that if one part was struck down the other parts would remain in force, and (b) the mandate was critical to the functioning of the entire Obamacare scheme, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire Obamacare scheme must also be struck down. He said at one point that if Congress could find the power to force people to buy health insurance whether they wanted it or not, then Congress must also have the power to force people to buy and eat broccoli whether they wanted it or not, on grounds that it would help the broccoli market AND would result in a healthier populace.
The District Court's ruling was appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals... and the 11th Circuit agreed with the District Court that the Mandate was unconstitutional and must be struck down. However, the 11th Circuit said that the rest of the law might still remain in force.
The Obamanites appealed to the Supreme Court, and oral arguments for that hearing begin today. They will run for an extraordinary three days, an amount of time not given to a case in the last forty years.
The Supremes will decide four different issues:
1.) In the late 1700s Congress passed the Anti-Injunction Act, which says that the courts cannot rule on a law that has not yet been fully implemented. The Supremes will decide whether this law should apply to the Obamacare case, since Obamacare imposes more and more restrictions and penalties gradually, some of whose deadlines have not yet come about. However, all of Obamacare HAS been signed into law. Can it legally be heard and ruled upon in court now?
2.) Is the mandate constitutional? Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the several states. But do they have the power to force ordinary citizens who are not currently engaged in a certain kind of commerce, to engage in it whether they want to or not?
3.) If the mandate is struck down, is the rest of Obamacare "severable"? Meaning, can the rest of Obamacare remain in force if the mandate is found unconstitutional?
4.) Obamacare also imposes heavy restrictions and regulations on states that receive Medicare funding. Is Congress exceeding the powers spelled out for it in the Constitution, and violating basic principles of Federalism (i.e. intruding upon the powers reserved to the States) by imposing those restrictions and regulations on States receiving Medicare funding?
Many people say the question of the Mandate's constitutionality, is the most important. If the mandate is struck down, even if the rest is left in place, it's generally agreed that the rest of Obamacare will collapse under its own weight, since only sick people will sign up, and will drain the system of all its resources.
Issue #4 above, may have even more far-reaching impact in the long run, than the striking down of the mandate and the resulting collapse of Obamacare's socialist scheme. Congress has long been exceeding the powers given it by the Constitution, relying on astonishingly "flexible" interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Welfare Clause to pretend the Framers intended to give Congress powers that were never written down.
If the Supreme Court rules that Congress has exceeded its powers by imposing these heavy restrictions on States receiving Medicare funding, this may have the effect of slamming to a stop the relentless expansion of Federal powers into areas reserved to the States. This would be an earth-shaking event, and may well signal the beginning of the end of Leftists' cherished desires to impose a Nanny State on the American people.
They will decide whether the mandate is an illegal tax. If they do, then they will decide whether the HC reform bill can stand without the mandate.
There will be three days for oral arguments (2 hours per day) then we wait for a decision.
I think it will be partially gutted but some items will stand. It will make things worse since halfaassing anything usually does. Then we can fight about what to do next. Lather rinse repeat for a couple years and single payor will be here.
They will decide whether the mandate is an illegal tax.
Actually, they will decide whether it's an illegal penalty.
When the bill was written, the leftists swore up and down that it was not implementing any new TAXES. So, when it came to the fines we must pay if we don't sign up, they were carefully described as "penalties", not taxes. That description remains in the Obamacare law to this day.
The humorous part is, now the leftists arguing their case today before the Supreme Court, are swearing up and down that it's a TAX, not a penalty! And since it's a tax, it's constitutional... since Congress clearly has the power to levy and collect taxes.
Judge Vinson of the District court, pointed this inconsistency out, and more or less told the leftists they had to get their stories straight if they want to win any cases at all.
Quote:
If they do, then they will decide whether the HC reform bill can stand without the mandate.
Even if they do decide to strike down the mandate but leave the rest of Obamacare on the books, the market will decide for them, whether the rest of Obamacare can stand. And the market's "decision" will be quick and merciless.
Quote:
There will be three days for oral arguments (2 hours per day) then we wait for a decision.
I just heard a report on the radio (ABC News) that said that arguments the first day were mostly on whether the "Anti-Injunction Act" prohibited the Courts from hearing Obamacare act at all, before all its provisions are in effect.
The report said that, from the questions the various Justices asked, it sounded like they didn't believe they had to delay their hearing and rendering an Opinion on Obamacare. Sounds like the case will move ahead as scheduled, not get postponed for the next several years.
The leftists are insisting that Congress has the power to force people to buy insurance, whether they want it or not, because the Constitution says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states.
The reason the Constitution says that, is because before the Constitution was written we had the Articles of Confederation, which did NOT say that.
And states were imposing taxes and duties on anything that crossed their borders. A guy in New York trying to sell things to people in other states, had to worry about tax rates being charged in every state he was selling to... no two of which were the same. And if he was selling to people in Georgia, he might have to ship his goods through half a dozen other states to get there... each of which would charge its duties for the goods. It was a huge mess.
So when the Constitution was written, they gave the Fed govt the power to regulate this... and effectively took that power AWAY from the individual states.
But now we have the big-government advocates telling us that, when the Founders wrote that phrase and the people ratified it, they intended to give the Fed govt the power to force each of us to buy things whether we wanted to or not.
It's one of the more bizarre "interpretations" of the Commerce clause, that has ever come along. And now the Supreme Court will decide if they agree with the Big Govt advocates.
They'll strike it down as unconstitutional if they intend doing the right thing. Of course, we know that four of them won't.
Me hope they intend do good also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
