Posted on 02/13/2014 3:17:29 PM PST by Ben Mugged
The court’s ruling today in Halbig v. Sebelius delivers a major blow to the states that chose not to participate in the Obamacare insurance exchange program. It is also a blow to the small businesses, employees and individuals who live in those states as well. In upholding this IRS regulation that is contrary to the law enacted by Congress, this decision guts the choice made by a majority of the states to stay out of the exchange program. It imposes Obamacare penalties on employers and on many individuals in those states, penalties that Congress never authorized, putting their livelihoods and the jobs of their employees at risk. Worst of all, it gives a stamp of approval to the Administration’s attempt to substitute its version of Obamacare for the law that Congress enacted.
The court does all this despite its own finding that our arguments were supported by, in its words, “the plain language” of the law’s key provision regarding state-established exchanges. And by erasing the distinction between functions carried out by states and functions carried out by the federal government on behalf of states, the ruling undercuts some basic aspects of federalism. We have appealed this decision, and will shortly move to expedite the appeal.
The federal government is once more attacking the very foundation of our Republic.
This is a month old but I could not find it posted.
How can a million or two bureaucrats make 330 million ARMED individuals do ANYTHING?
Americans CANNOT WIN in our “courts” anymore. The clown “judges” are all DNC toadies. The “judicial” system is a bunch of out of control, activist clowns.
This is the reason that Obama is buying up all the ammo.
it’s why they want all your bank accounts computerized and why they want your house smart-metered, and your appliances able to be controlled remotely.
they will make your life extremely difficult if you don’t go along with the wonderful fedgov plans.
but computerizing stuff makes control a hell of a lot easier. just shut down your power, or your business’ power, not let you pay stuff electronically, not access your funds, confiscate your money electronically, your life sucks hard pretty fast if you’re not prepared.
Nullification and a Convention of the States may be the only choices unless Obama is impeached after the mid-terms and the GOP takes over Congress and kills this monstrosity. But clearly, illegal actions by the President and Courts may generate radical actions by the states and people.
What’s that compared to Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz or Dachau?
which court did this take place in???
Sounds as though the Court followed the John Roberts rule and legislated from the bench. Now, Congress' authority is down to being usurped by the lower court, as well.
By bringing overwhelming pressure to bear on us individually under cover of law. See #5 above for a few of the details.
It’s time for some open rebellion.
The federal government is lawless. They have no moral authority and rule by decree backed up by the barrel of a gun.
Pisspoor writing. You always state the specific court that you are referring to in the first paragraph.
Stupid “Ted Mack Amateur Hour” writing. Or did I just insult Ted Mack and his participants?
O owe, I owe, I owe so off to court I go say todays judges. What a circus our legal system has become. Is it any wonder there is less and less respect for the laws these days.....if one can really know what the laws say anymore.
A Rule that Would Obliterate the Law
The first problem has to do with the fact that Judge Friedman ruled in favor of the IRS, as the law professors say, at “Chevron Step One.” In English, that means he found “the unambiguous meaning of the statute” is that Congress intended to authorize tax credits in federal Exchanges. That’s problematic because the statute says the exact opposite. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) The tax-credit eligibility rules clearly say that taxpayers are eligible for credits if enrolled in a qualified health plan through an Exchange “established by the State under Section 1311.” They employ this restriction repeatedly and consistently. Given such explicit language, it is hard to argue Congress intended to authorize tax credits in federal Exchanges. It is harder still to argue Congress intended one thing, expressed the opposite desire in the statute, and yet somehow expressed itself without ambiguity. That’s not to say it is impossible. But consider what that would take for Congress to achieve such a feat. Everyone from the Halbig plaintiffs to neutral observers like the Congressional Research Service to defenders of the IRS like law professor Timothy Jost have recognized that the words “established by the State under section 1311” mean that tax credits are available only through state-established Exchanges. In the face of that clear directive, establishing ambiguity about Congress’ intent would require Judge Friedman to identify some provision of the statute or piece of legislative history that shows with equal clarity that Congress intended the PPACA to authorize tax credits in federal Exchanges. (More about this in my next post.) If, however, Judge Friedman wants to establish that Congress – without ambiguity – directed the IRS to do the opposite of what the statute says, the lift is heavier. He would need to identify statutory language explicitly directing the agency to ignore what everyone knows the words “established by the State under section 1311” mean. As it turns out, the PPACA’s authors did that sort of thing routinely. So it would have been easy for them to do here, had that been their intent. Section 1323 provides that U.S. territories establishing a compliant Exchange “shall be treated as a State.” So, Congress could have said that Exchanges established by the federal government shall be treated as though they had been established by a state. Section 1304(d) creates a legal fiction when it explicitly defines “State” to include the District of Columbia. (Since D.C. established its own Exchange, this legal fiction makes D.C. residents eligible for tax credits.) In the same manner, Congress could have defined Exchanges “established by the State under section 1311” to include federal Exchanges. Finally, the PPACA contains 95 separate “notwithstanding” clauses. Had its authors added just one more – say, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, premium-assistance tax credits shall be available through Exchanges established by the Secretary” – Congress would have unambiguously overridden the plain meaning of the tax-credit eligibility rules, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And yet, Congress did none of these things.
Ya’ll don’t understand - this is the Court Dance. Ain’t no way the lower Court is going to rule against the Administration - they’re not gonna take the heat. Also, they now enabled more specific legal issues to be addressed by kicking it upstairs.
this corrupt government seems to want a hot revolution. The best way to avoid that is for those in the US military and law enforcement across the country to start honoring their oath.
There’s already enough ammo and firearms in private hands here to fight World War II five hundred times over. If they couldn’t subjugate Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia or Afghanistan with all the firepower available to them that have zero chance against even 10% of us. PERIOD. Wake up people, we have all the cards!
How many people still think that a Convention to consider amendments presents a greater risk to those rights than the present trajectory of the federal government?
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.