[2ndDivisionVet]

When they're constantly talking about something ("President Ted Cruz") they both fear and anticipate it. I'd love to see the real, internal polling that we peasants aren't allowed to see. It must be eye-opening.

[Baynative]

[struggle]

PLEASE MAKE THIS A REALITY.

[Personal Responsibility]

Ambiguous: Clear language that does not mean what a liberal wants it to mean.

Clear: Ambiguous language as defined by a liberal.

Get it?

[loveliberty2]

The very idea that a Chief Justice might consider risking violation of constitutional principle and liberty for future generations on the possibility that a wrong decision by this Court might be righted in the future, based on some dubious "Chevron" precedent is, in the words of Madison, "chimerical."

What a foolish risk of the liberty the U. S. Constitution was designed to "protect" from all foes.

"Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." - John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, 1777

What an awesome responsibility the Justices of 2015 have to Adams and the other Framers of America's Constitution to "make good use" of the opportunity they have now to "preserve" freedom for future generations by preserving the Constitution's separation of powers and limits on government power!

If they "do not," then history will record their action as a betrayal of the trust of all the brave men and women who have been willing to sacrifice everything for freedom's cause--from 1776 to now.

May they feel the heavy cloak of responsibility they bear for the freedom of those future generations, and may their opinions recall those ideas of individual liberty so beautifully articulated by the Framers of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

[PapaNew]

States, get ready to nullify Obamacare as an unconstitutional federal act unless after you have done a good-faith analysis of the applicable texts and original understanding and intent, you find the act as constitutional. (It is not, but clearly outside the bounds the framers intended for the Commerce Clause, if that is what they are using as constitutional justification.)

[Amendment10]

Patriots may have to ultimately peacefully confront activist justices with the following previously posted excerpts from previous case opinions relevant to intrastate healthcare. I would demand the resignations of all the justices too since corrupt Congress can’t be trusted to impeach these traitors. The Supreme Court is long overdue for a reboot imo.

Regarding the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the following list, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia. In that case the Court had essentially clarified that the feds have no Commerce Clause power to regulate insurance regardless if an insurance policy is negotiated across state borders.

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• “Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.

• ”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)

• “Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

Also note that regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs and corrupt justices will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

[The_Reader_David]

Obamacare was a horror of a law, bad enough as written, but has been made far worse by regulatory interpretations given by the Obama Administration. Day one of a GOP administration the contraceptive mandate along with most of the requirements placed on insurance policies to meet the standards of the law can be stripped out by a simple executive order without Congress acting to repeal it (assuming it’s still in place after King v Burwell is decided), since they exist only by the invocation of numerous clauses in the law abrogating Congress’s responsibility to legislate with the words “as the Secretary [of HHS] shall direct”, along with changing the regulatory ruling on the subsidies if SCOTUS keeps it alive by this trick.

[Sacajaweau]

There's a missing piece here. I believe it is in a specific section dealing with state exchanges. If it included a Federal Exchange, he should have made reference to the same.

I have to find the actual text to back this up.

[Hostage]

The crux of their argument is stuck in a bed of scaremongering.

> “Verilli argued that this hypothetical Republican administration “would need a very strong case” to change the IRS’s interpretation, especially given the ***hugely disruptive effects*** that would follow”

No, President Cruz would not need a strong case at all. He would simply provide transitional budget proposals for DHHS to put all the subsidized back on to Medicaid where they came from to begin with.

You see, what they’re trying to do is to put out this narrative in the media that if you hold them to account on their own wording and their own intents and destroy the monstrosity they’ve created, well then ... “Woe is me, the world is going to end!”. And their comeback is “you don’t want to take away all those people’s healthcare now do ya?” What a lame crappy argument.

People are going to get their healthcare no matter what. Before Obamacare, clinics were required by law to serve those who walked through their doors.

Obamacare does not provide new care. It provides the unions, especially General Motors unions with a new funding source for their healthcare and retiree healthcare. That new funding source is on the backs of the young and healthy American workers. Those workers are paying for union healthcare because the employers over-promised and couldn’t deliver. People forget that many unions are exempt from Obamacare requirements.

So let’s sit back and watch the scam unfold.

[Sacajaweau]

So the reason the Fed exchange wasn’t ready....was because there wasn’t to be a Fed Exchange?????

[goldstategop]

Liberals are hyper-ventilating about a poorly drafted law.

If the SCOTUS guts it, they’ll have no one to blame for it but themselves.

Obamacare is a victim of its own inability to attain its proclaimed objective of ensuring affordable health care for the population.

[Ray76]

There is nothing ambiguous, “exchange established by the state” is not “exchange established within a state” or “exchange established by the HHS Secretary”.

It is ridiculous to assert that Congress would delegate to an Executive agency the decision to collect and to disburse billions of dollars.

[Sacajaweau]

I keep watching some "mind bending" wording about Obamacare.

It goes something like this.

The Federal Government set up state Exchanges in those states where the state did not want to run it.

But the timing doesn't seem to fit. There was no Fed Led exchange site to go to for years.