Posted on 03/24/2012 11:41:18 AM PDT by NCjim
On Monday the Supreme Court begins three days of oral arguments concerning possible — actually, probable and various — constitutional infirmities in Obamacare. The justices have received many amicus briefs, one of which merits special attention because of the elegant scholarship and logic with which it addresses an issue that has not been as central to the debate as it should be.
Hitherto, most attention has been given to whether Congress, under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, may coerce individuals into engaging in commerce by buying health insurance. Now the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, has focused on this fact: The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. This is so because a compulsory contract is an oxymoron.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No, DE “reps” are as bright as a solar-powered flashlight in a coal mine.
Newt will be at Hockessin Fire Hall in Hockessin, DE (near PA border)
It won’t matter! ObamaCare has mandatory minimum coverages to where everyone is going to get the same exact plan as directed by HHS.
If the Court doesn't buy the argument based on the commerce clause, they may buy the argument that being required to purchase insurance is like a tax, and Congress has power to impose taxes.
The Antifederalists were right--the powers granted to the federal government would eventually lead to tyranny.
Settled law nor the Constitution matter not to Marxist’s bent on transforming this nation into a parasitic hell hole.
Contracts where one side forces the other side into against their will, have for all history, been viewed as being null and void.
Actually, the amicus brief cites several pre 1780 court rulings. One going back to 1600’s. Read the brief. It’s only 42 pages but very well argued.
LOL! Thanks for the info on Newt's appearance in Hockessin.
I was refering to the
coercing individuals into engaging in commerce. I wasn’t saying the argument in the article was wrong.
Although, I have been guilty of not reading an entire article or misreading it.
Otherwise, if the g’mint actually forces people to buy healthcare its all over..deserted tropical island time:)
I was refering to the
coercing individuals into engaging in commerce. I wasn’t saying the argument in the article was wrong.
Although, I have been guilty of not reading an entire article or misreading it.
Otherwise, if the g’mint actually forces people to buy healthcare its all over..deserted tropical island time:)
I was refering to the
coercing individuals into engaging in commerce. I wasn’t saying the argument in the article was wrong.
Although, I have been guilty of not reading an entire article or misreading it.
Otherwise, if the g’mint actually forces people to buy healthcare its all over..deserted tropical island time:)
-——if the g’mint actually forces people to buy healthcare its all over..-——
I saw a commercial on TV Friday that is a strong precedent for not forcing people to buy insurance.
The government and insurance buying problem has been around for a while in the form of flood insurance. If you want flood insurance and live in a flood plain you must buy it from the government. You are not forced to buy it and can self insure
The congress that wrote the law, likely including many who wrote the healthcare fiasco, knew that to force floodplain dwellers to buy insurance was unconstitutional
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.