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.
Of course I understand that they are not insurance policies. However, they do involve insurance companies and the ways in which the companies are allowed to opporate and to collect money. Therefore, there is clearly a federal component in play.
no, they involve PERSONAL information, and PERSONAL CHOICE to continue to receive insurance.
The companies are regulated BY THE STATES, not the federal government.. Thats why they are not allowed to cross the state line.. Democrats wanted it this way, now they need to live by the rules they set into play.
You still looking for an insurance company who crosses the state line?
This is a piece of court law that will kill the healthcare bill.
Probably not. The Bailey case was overturned as precedent back in the early 50's, and I doubt that any Lochner-era cases would serve as the basis for any modern ruling.
Regardless of the bill's merits, the court no longer uses Lochner-era cases for very much. That particular judicial era pretty much ended in the 1930's.
This Napolitano, according to author and judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano.
I for one see we are in a big problem with Obama... he hasn't a clue about the Cons or any thing in particular American for that matter. Even if he is American, by birth he has no idea about us. He may as well have been born on the moon if you ask me.
One minute he was born from the darkness, the next instant a senator with no proven anything, for 176 days, and as a unknown somehow came into votes which got him elected.
So far nothing makes any sence, and so far all he has done is win the Gun Saleman award for the year.
I don't care if the guy is orange, but i do want a guy that knows something about how to run a large, very large corp. As it is this country is a ship at sea with a fool for a captian.
"I believe we have a one party system in this country, called the big-government party," Napolitano says. "There is a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branch that likes welfare and taxes and assaulting commercial liberties."
Okay so far! Next paragraph!
"President Obama obviously is squarely within the Democratic branch. The president who had the least fidelity to the Constitution was Abraham Lincoln, who waged war on half the country, even though there's obviously no authority for that, a war that killed nearly 700,000 people. President Obama is close to that end of lacking fidelity to the Constitution. He wants to outdo his hero FDR."
Oooops! Into the nutjob pile you go! Thanks for playing, Andrew! An-drew Napolitano, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you.
Dream on.. I'm willing to bet that out of dozens of lawsuits filed by the states, that there is at least one lawyer more competent than Orly Taitz Esq.
It has nothing to do with the quality of the lawyer. Orly Taitz was hardly the only lawyer bringing such cases and they all met the same entirely predictable fate. The same is true with HCR. There isn't a case to make, much less win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
you wish.. The Commerce Clause argument fails because insurance DOES NOT cross the state lines...
Of course it does. The simple fact that insurance covers you wherever you go puts the kibosh on that theory. If you live and work in Virginia and have a company policy and then move to Maryland, do you get new insurance? Why no. If you live in Virginia but work in DC and have a company policy, is it different from the policy that a coworker who lives in Maryland receives? Why no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
...and the General Welfare Clause fails because individual health is for the INDIVIDUAL welfare. If you think my breathing is justification for federal oversight into my life, then there isnt one thing in Washington which cant be regulated.
Congress has a substantive power to tax and spend for purposes related to the general welfare, and the elected representaives of the people are given wide latitude by the courts in determining what is related to the general welfare. Those are just the facts you all will have to deal with.
Probably not. The Bailey case was overturned as precedent back in the early 50's, and I doubt that any Lochner-era cases would serve as the basis for any modern ruling.
Regardless of the bill's merits, the court no longer uses Lochner-era cases for very much. That particular judicial era pretty much ended in the 1930's.
Do you have a link where it was overturned?? I can only find one for a different case.
I just popped in my dvd of Capricorn One, because this thread inspired me so much.
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.
