Supreme Court Bound! Health Care Reform Law Unconstitutional

[Intense]

8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...eform-law-unconstitutional-6.html#post3082706

 

[goldcatt]

8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...eform-law-unconstitutional-6.html#post3082706

Sorry, my friend. That doesn't have the info I'm looking for. Who was the named plaintiff? Without that or a docket number all that's out there is media summaries and reports, and they're always super simplified and usually biased in some way. I like to read the opinion before forming a concrete opinion of my own.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I still don't get the resistance to requiring people to have some sort of insurance coverage.

Quite simple.
You have the right to provide for your health care how you see fit.
The government cannot force you to exercise one of your rights in a particular manner.

 

[goldcatt]

8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...eform-law-unconstitutional-6.html#post3082706

Found it, I'll chase it down. Thanks!

 

[SFC Ollie]

8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...eform-law-unconstitutional-6.html#post3082706

Sorry, my friend. That doesn't have the info I'm looking for. Who was the named plaintiff? Without that or a docket number all that's out there is media summaries and reports, and they're always super simplified and usually biased in some way. I like to read the opinion before forming a concrete opinion of my own.

Text: Judge Hudson's Decision Striking Down Part Of Health Law - Kaiser Health News

 

[Intense]

8 pages of posts on this, does anybody have so much as a case name to get the actual District Court decision?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...eform-law-unconstitutional-6.html#post3082706

Sorry, my friend. That doesn't have the info I'm looking for. Who was the named plaintiff? Without that or a docket number all that's out there is media summaries and reports, and they're always super simplified and usually biased in some way. I like to read the opinion before forming a concrete opinion of my own.

Thanks Ollie, for the Link. The Ruling appears well grounded. I'm Impressed.

 

[Foxfyre]

America has lost her heart, her compassion, her civic responsibility. Thankfully the supreme court didn't get any McCain selections. One can hope charity and good sense prevails as it does on occasion.

This nation is so controlled by corporate tools there would be no founders today.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

Imagine trying to pass SS today.

"The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decision." Social Security Online

We wouldn't pass Social Security today because we have seen the end results of yet another entitlement that had good intentions but resulted in unintended negative consequences and is unsustainable.

I think the world is far MORE compassionate now than it has ever been in the history of humankind on Earth BUT inpolitics there are distinct differences between Left and Right as to what compassion is.

To the conservative, compassion is his willingly and VOLUNTARILY giving of his resources to help others.

To many leftists, compassion is via taxes or mandates forcing Citizen A to help out Citizen B.

In my opinion charity is something I choose to do with my own money or resources. It don't call it charity or compassion when I confiscate your money or resources to give to somebody else and then feel righteous that I've done my duty.

 

[goldcatt]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...eform-law-unconstitutional-6.html#post3082706

Sorry, my friend. That doesn't have the info I'm looking for. Who was the named plaintiff? Without that or a docket number all that's out there is media summaries and reports, and they're always super simplified and usually biased in some way. I like to read the opinion before forming a concrete opinion of my own.

Hey!!! Who's the Court expert here! Who has a better chance of coming up with the docket number?

Ollie, apparently!

Still reading...this judge really, really does not like a couple of SCOTUS decisions.

 

[Intense]

Sorry, my friend. That doesn't have the info I'm looking for. Who was the named plaintiff? Without that or a docket number all that's out there is media summaries and reports, and they're always super simplified and usually biased in some way. I like to read the opinion before forming a concrete opinion of my own.

Hey!!! Who's the Court expert here! Who has a better chance of coming up with the docket number?

Ollie, apparently!

Still reading...this judge really, really does not like a couple of SCOTUS decisions.

Should that surprise you?

 

[goldcatt]

Hey!!! Who's the Court expert here! Who has a better chance of coming up with the docket number?

Ollie, apparently!

Still reading...this judge really, really does not like a couple of SCOTUS decisions.

Should that surprise you?

Not at all. Wickard and Gonzales are cases that hit the outer limits of the Commerce Clause. But they are, in fact, law until an unless they're overturned whether anybody likes them or not.

It's a case of first impression. Does refusal to participate in economic activity constitute economic activity in itself? Interesting question.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Please, someone else posted that link earlier. I forget who....

 

[Intense]

By JANET ADAMY

RICHMOND, Va.—A federal court ruled Monday that a central plank of the health law violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment.
In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

The individual mandate "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, of the Eastern District of Virginia. "At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."
The lawsuit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration.

While the ruling creates a headache for the law's supporters, it doesn't mean states or the federal government must stop implementing the law.

Judge Hudson didn't grant the plaintiffs' request for an immediate nationwide injunction against the entire law or against the requirement that most Americans carry insurance. That requirement, known as the individual mandate, begins in 2014. The judge also said his ruling only applies to the individual mandate and the provisions of the law that are directly dependent on it.

Judge Sides With Virginia on Health Law - WSJ.com

 

[Intense]

Ollie, apparently!

Still reading...this judge really, really does not like a couple of SCOTUS decisions.

Should that surprise you?

Not at all. Wickard and Gonzales are cases that hit the outer limits of the Commerce Clause. But they are, in fact, law until an unless they're overturned whether anybody likes them or not.

It's a case of first impression. Does refusal to participate in economic activity constitute economic activity in itself? Interesting question.

Are we the Property of the State? Interesting question.

 

[goldcatt]

Probably, Ollie. I just skimmed over the thread looking for the good stuff and probably passed right over it.

And it is an interesting question. I'm not sure what the answer should be on a first read.

 

[loosecannon]

It is the very question and it is the big problem because the answer becomes:

if that crap is upheld then "there is practically nothing that the Government can no longer require of us."

like a free foreplay session each time you wish to fly or take a train, or a free pass to enter and search your home without your knowledge, or read your e-mail just because.

The unitary executive is above the law and in that is itself unconstitutional.

And the fed IS trying to expand it's powers on every front from preventing states from enforcing existing federal law to intervening in bankruptcy proceedings.

But almost nobody really cares. They are two busy worrying about the other party to recognize the real dangers enfolding.

I hate to throw in some cold water, but that whole cockamamie crap about "unitary executive" is just so much meaningless pablum.

The Executive Branch IS unitary (yes there are some deliberate exceptions, but by and large it is what it is; and that's unitary).

And, more importantly, the FACT that the Executive Branch is unitary does not make it unConstitutional, either.

Certain authorities were given EXCLUSIVELY to the Judicial Branch (and then they claimed even more).

Certain authorities were granted EXCLUSIVELY to the Legislative Branch.

And, yes, certain authorities were granted EXCLUSIVELY to the Executive Branch.

The exclusivity of such authorities was granted BY the Constitution, so it cannot be UN-constitutional.

The bullet points to which you point may be areas of legitimate concern (to varied extents), but the problems have nothing to do with the mythical bogeyman of a "unitary executive."

I didn't invent the term, and it is a buzzword within a movement in constitutional legal circles that seeks to expand presidential authorities:

Unitary executive theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The unitary executive theory is a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President controls the entire executive branch. The doctrine is based upon Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President.

Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine.[1] It can be said that some favor a "strongly unitary" executive, while others favor a "weakly unitary" executive.[1] The former group argue, for example, that Congress's power to interfere with intra-executive decision-making (such as firing executive branch officials) is limited, and that the President can control policy-making by all executive agencies within the limits set for those agencies by Congress. Still others agree that the Constitution requires a unitary executive, but believe this is a bad thing, and propose its abolition by constitutional amendment.[2]

In several states, in contrast to the federal government, executive officers such as lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, secretary of state and others are elected independently of the state's governor, with Texas being one of the best examples. This type of Executive structure is known as a Plural Executive.

The Vesting Clause of Article II provides that "[t]he executive Power [of the United States] shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that this language, along with the Take Care Clause ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."), creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President."[3]

The general principle that the President controls the entire executive branch was originally rather innocuous, but extreme forms of the theory have developed.[4] John Dean explains: "In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters."[

Unitary executive theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have seen examples of the president acting fully above the law since 9/11. And it has been reported that both Roberts and Kagan were appointed and Miers was nominated based on their strong support for increasing presidential powers.

 

[goldcatt]

Should that surprise you?

Not at all. Wickard and Gonzales are cases that hit the outer limits of the Commerce Clause. But they are, in fact, law until an unless they're overturned whether anybody likes them or not.

It's a case of first impression. Does refusal to participate in economic activity constitute economic activity in itself? Interesting question.

Are we the Property of the State? Interesting question.

Not exactly.

If Congress has the right, as it currently does, to regulate individual economic activity that has an aggregate effect on interstate commerce, does it also have the right to regulate the refusal to engage in such activity when that refusal also has an aggregate impact on interstate commerce? And, if so, does a tax on these individuals fall under the necessary and proper clause?

I'm not sure I agree with the standard of review the judge chose to use, or his pretty much out of hand dismissal of Wickard and Gonzales, I think he made a decision that's above his pay grade here - but then again, somebody has to be the first to weigh in. That will be taken up at the Circuit level.

 

[The Rabbi]

Note: Congress does not have rights.

 

[Zander]

I believe this is the first of many such decisions to come. The scummy way they passed the bill , the sleazy back room deals that made it possible, the whole thing stinks like raw sewage. It is time to repeal this POS.......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If this law stands, when we win it back we're going to pass a law requiring that all Libs begin the day with the pledge of allegiance, eat a Big Mac for lunch and listen to Limbaugh for at least an hour

 

[goldcatt]

I believe this is the first of many such decisions to come. The scummy way they passed the bill , the sleazy back room deals that made it possible, the whole thing stinks like raw sewage. It is time to repeal this POS.......

I don't like it either, probably for some of the same reasons and probably for some different ones.

But once it hits the courts it's not a question of politics or whether we like it, or shouldn't be. It's a question of law. And the question here is one that's never been decided before. I think this judge severed it appropriately and put out an opinion to move it along, frankly. Some of his differentiation seems sloppy and he's inserting quite a bit of his own judgment in place of legal basis. But issues of first impression aren't decided in his court and he knows his odds are only 50/50 of the order standing at best. So mooove it on up and let the games begin!