What Is The Republican Alternative To ObamaCare

[bigrebnc1775]

Quote Having held the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, the majority examined whether that provision could be severed from the remainder of the Act. The majority determined that, contrary to the District Court’s view, it could. The court thus struck down only the individual mandate, leaving the Act’s other provisions intact.

"The District Court determined that the individual mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act, and therefore struck down the Act in its entirety."

"Judge Marcus dissented, reasoning that the individual mandate regulates economic activity that has a cleareffect on interstate commerce." "Having held the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, the majority examined whether that provision could be severed from the remainder of the Act. The majority determined that, contrary to the District Court’s view, it could. The court thus struck down only the individual mandate, leaving the Act’s other provisions intact."

Ahem, what court?

Part due

Having held the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, the majority examined whether that provision could be severed from the remainder of the Act. The majority determined that, contrary to the District Court’s view, it could. The court thus struck down only the individual mandate, leaving the Act’s other provisions intact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]


Published June 28, 2012
FoxNews.com
Facebook0 Twitter450 LinkedIn96

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama's health care overhaul, in a landmark ruling that will have sweeping consequences for the economy, the election and America's health care system.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-obamacare-survives/

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor [MENTION=23837]bigrebnc1775[/MENTION] lost in cyberspace


Danger, danger Will Robinson

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Go away reb, go away!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]


Published June 28, 2012
FoxNews.com
Facebook0 Twitter450 LinkedIn96

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama's health care overhaul, in a landmark ruling that will have sweeping consequences for the economy, the election and America's health care system.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-obamacare-survives/

Dumbass doesn't read his own link

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Go away reb, go away!

why does my causing you to fail give you that butt hurt feeling?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

poor [MENTION=23837]bigrebnc1775[/MENTION] lost in cyberspace


Danger, danger Will Robinson

You don't comprehend well do you?
The mandate was ruled unconstitutional because of the tax verbiage with in the law it was ruled a tax.
How hard is that too understand?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]


Published June 28, 2012
FoxNews.com
Facebook0 Twitter450 LinkedIn96

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama's health care overhaul, in a landmark ruling that will have sweeping consequences for the economy, the election and America's health care system.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-obamacare-survives/

Dumbass doesn't read his own link

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

reading and comprehension is seriously lacking in NC..

Roberts ruled the Individual Mandate constitutional. Even FOX News eventually reported that fact

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]


Published June 28, 2012
FoxNews.com
Facebook0 Twitter450 LinkedIn96

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama's health care overhaul, in a landmark ruling that will have sweeping consequences for the economy, the election and America's health care system.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-obamacare-survives/

Dumbass doesn't read his own link

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Roberts ruled the Individual Mandate constitutional. Even FOX News eventually reported that fact

I just quoted what was in the link the Commerce Clause was the argument used for the mandate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

poor [MENTION=23837]bigrebnc1775[/MENTION] lost in cyberspace


Danger, danger Will Robinson

You don't comprehend well do you?
The mandate was ruled unconstitutional because of the tax verbiage with in the law it was ruled a tax.
How hard is that too understand?

The Supreme Court never ruled the mandate was unconstitutional. even FOX News agrees.


Disagreeing with one of two theories was not a judgment/ruling on the mandate's constitutionality

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dumbass doesn't read his own link

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Roberts ruled the Individual Mandate constitutional. Even FOX News eventually reported that fact

I just quoted what was in the link the Commerce Clause was the argument used for the mandate.

Nope. There you go again:


"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

poor [MENTION=23837]bigrebnc1775[/MENTION] lost in cyberspace


Danger, danger Will Robinson

You don't comprehend well do you?
The mandate was ruled unconstitutional because of the tax verbiage with in the law it was ruled a tax.
How hard is that too understand?

The Supreme Court never ruled the mandate was unconstitutional. even FOX News agrees.


Disagreeing with one of two theories was not a judgment/ruling on the mandate's constitutionality

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

Yes it did rule it unconstitutional the Commerce Clause was the argument used for the mandate. and Justice Roberts said: the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Roberts ruled the Individual Mandate constitutional. Even FOX News eventually reported that fact

I just quoted what was in the link the Commerce Clause was the argument used for the mandate.

Nope. There you go again:


"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

there you go again not comprehending what is in the link you posted. I even quoted part of it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

dante go fail fail

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You don't comprehend well do you?
The mandate was ruled unconstitutional because of the tax verbiage with in the law it was ruled a tax.
How hard is that too understand?

The Supreme Court never ruled the mandate was unconstitutional. even FOX News agrees.


Disagreeing with one of two theories was not a judgment/ruling on the mandate's constitutionality

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

Yes it did rule it unconstitutional the Commerce Clause was the argument used for the mandate. and Justice Roberts said: the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

was not THE argument


and earlier you were confusing an appeals court ruling with that of the scotus


go to bed big guy.

quote from Roberts' ruling: "The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You don't comprehend well do you?
The mandate was ruled unconstitutional because of the tax verbiage with in the law it was ruled a tax.
How hard is that too understand?

The Supreme Court never ruled the mandate was unconstitutional. even FOX News agrees.


Disagreeing with one of two theories was not a judgment/ruling on the mandate's constitutionality

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

Yes it did rule it unconstitutional the Commerce Clause was the argument used for the mandate. and Justice Roberts said: the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Fool. Roberts was saying one of two theories. That is not saying the mandate is unconstitutional, only that one argument was invalid. Part of a government case being made. The other argument advanced by the government was upheld to be valid.

The validity of the argument was enough to rule the mandate constitutional.

You are typical of rightwing Tea Party America?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Supreme Court never ruled the mandate was unconstitutional. even FOX News agrees.


Disagreeing with one of two theories was not a judgment/ruling on the mandate's constitutionality

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

Yes it did rule it unconstitutional the Commerce Clause was the argument used for the mandate. and Justice Roberts said: the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

was not THE argument


and earlier you were confusing an appeals court ruling with that of the scotus


go to bed big guy.

quote from Roberts' ruling: "The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

The Commerce Clause was most defiantly used as an argument for the mandate.
from your link you posted.
Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

bigrebnc1775 bigrebnc1775
Constitutional Watchdog

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Supreme Court never ruled the mandate was unconstitutional. even FOX News agrees.


Disagreeing with one of two theories was not a judgment/ruling on the mandate's constitutionality

"The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause...Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nontheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax. According to the Government, even if Congress lacks the power to direct individuals to buy insurance, the only effect of the individual mandate is to raise taxes on those who do not do so, and thus the law may be upheld as a tax."

Yes it did rule it unconstitutional the Commerce Clause was the argument used for the mandate. and Justice Roberts said: the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Fool. Roberts was saying one of two theories. That is not saying the mandate is unconstitutional, only that one argument was invalid. Part of a government case being made. The other argument advanced by the government was upheld to be valid.

The validity of the argument was enough to rule the mandate constitutional.

You are typical of rightwing Tea Party America?

This is not a theory that you speak of

Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

If you don't like what is in a link don't use it. stop cherry picking your own link.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc1775 bigrebnc1775
Constitutional Watchdog

I'm making a fool out of you or am I just showing how foolish you are? Yep that's it, I'm showing how foolish you are.