Skip to comments.
Breaking On Fox: VA Judge Declares Individual Mandate In ObamaCare UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Fox News
| 12/13/10
| Fox News
Posted on 12/13/2010 9:21:01 AM PST by careyb
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 341-349 next last
To: Spunky
ON that video at time stamp 47 minutes, he says that part of the Health care bill that talks about that register ID chip implantation on page 1001 of the health bill ( National Medical device registry )
To: tirednvirginia
“Cuccinelli for president!!!
Hes young, good looking, dynamic, conservative, intelligent and a winner!!!”
And Italian to boot! Molto bene....
222
posted on
12/13/2010 10:43:33 AM PST
by
bella1
(Four years of Carter gave us eight years of Reagan.)
To: careyb
Been saying since a few days after March 21 this year that the Commerce Clause would be a win for conservatives but that 16th Amendment power to tax would defeat conservatives just as it was used to defeat attempts to abolish Social Security in 1935.
I am not ready to do a victory lap. In fact, I think conservatives need to stay focused on how the 1913 16th Amendment opened the door to socialism, allowing Social Security, then Medicare and now a mandate to pay for health insurance.
Winning a court case based on the Commerce Clause is not sufficient.
Here’s what has to be done when we learn the appeal upholds Obamacare under the power to tax 16th Amendment:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html
223
posted on
12/13/2010 10:43:39 AM PST
by
Hostage
To: American Constitutionalist
Thamks! I will see if I can find that.
224
posted on
12/13/2010 10:45:33 AM PST
by
Spunky
(You are free to make choices, but not free from the consequences)
To: ExNewsExSpook
Much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the DUmp. Here’s a quote from a DUmmie: “Obama is the reason why Change can not and will not happen..People will not fall for his line again..”
225
posted on
12/13/2010 10:45:53 AM PST
by
matt1234
(0bama's bunker phase: Nov. 2010 - Jan. 2013)
To: GonzoGOP
Remember that they approved the Senate version of the bill in order to get it done in reconciliation. Well now they run into the problem that all tax bills must start in the House. It wasn't a problem if it wasn't a tax. But if it is a tax, then the method of passage was unconstitutional. Great point!
226
posted on
12/13/2010 10:46:17 AM PST
by
vrwc1
To: careyb
Hey, this is a “Big F’ing Deal”!
227
posted on
12/13/2010 10:47:17 AM PST
by
TonyInOhio
( Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.)
To: animal172; careyb
228
posted on
12/13/2010 10:47:40 AM PST
by
Hostage
To: careyb
How long before this goes to SCOTUS?
To: careyb; P-Marlowe; nuconvert
*****Applies only to VA****Not true. Fourth Circuit covers Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
230
posted on
12/13/2010 10:48:21 AM PST
by
Hoodat
(Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
To: BuckeyeTexan
But the lack of a severability clause wouldnt necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority and isnt wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Courts approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand. Yes, but given that Obamacare is financially unworkable without the penalty, it wouldn't make sense to allow the rest of the law to stand without that critical part.
231
posted on
12/13/2010 10:50:35 AM PST
by
vrwc1
To: Spunky
Ok, but, ObamaCare needs to be repealed NOW !!!
God save our American States !!!
It is not over yet, so we need to keep praying.
The health care bill has nothing to do with Health Care, it has everything to do with controlling us people.
To: STARWISE; onyx; maggief; SE Mom; penelopesire; Liz
If we all say “Hallelujah!” at one time does that equal the “HALLELUJAH CHORUS”?
233
posted on
12/13/2010 10:53:52 AM PST
by
hoosiermama
(ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
To: Hoodat
He is a district court judge. His ruling does not apply to any other states until the 4th Circuit of Appeals agrees with him.
To: firebrand
Federal Judge Rules NO MANDATE for individual h.c. insurance - On the Same day that Barry Soetoro Obama signs a bill Outlawing local school cupcake sales...?
I just sent this Tweet to @WhiteHouse and @PressSec (Gibbs):
“I’m Celebrating Judge Hudson’s Ruling by Eating a Cupcake from my local school Bake Sale!”
235
posted on
12/13/2010 10:57:11 AM PST
by
VRWCTexan
(Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it !)
To: American Constitutionalist
Pastor Perry stone said that there is one thing that was hidden in the Healthcare bill , deep in the pages that when people register for the healthcare, they will be forced ( yes, forced ) to be implanted with somekind of ID chip in their right hand. Never heard if him but he sounds like he needs to get a stronger reinforced tin foil hat.
To: 9YearLurker
OPERATION SMACK DOWN BEGINS IN THE COURTS!!!
To: Political Junkie Too
I agree that income and wealth can be taxed multiple times as the income or wealth takes on different forms. However in this case the mandate itself is considered a tax, that is the insurance plan is not JUST insurance or taxable income, it IS a tax.
This would be like assessing individuals an additional tax based on the tax that they already pay.
238
posted on
12/13/2010 10:59:14 AM PST
by
grumpygresh
(Democrats delenda est)
To: MortMan
That’s not true. I think that commentators were stressing that this ruling only applies to the case brought by VA and that the other cases were still pending. If Obamacare is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional, period.
239
posted on
12/13/2010 11:01:56 AM PST
by
pgkdan
(Protect and Defend America! End the practice of islam on our shores before it's too late!)
To: vrwc1
After all, the legislatures' intent must be understood when considering a bill in court, right? I would think so. Of course, I'm an "original intent" kind of guy. Since a lot of folks consider all legislation to be "living", I think there is a concern that the goverment may decide "When we debated the bill, and passed the bill, it was not a tax. However, at this point in time, we deem it expedient to declare that it is a tax. Let it be so."
I will be amazed if the Supreme Court doesn't trike this thing down, but I've been surprised before. ;)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 341-349 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson