Posted on 04/16/2010 11:42:54 PM PDT by legalwatch
Lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the new federal health care law are not likely to succeed, a former U.S. Senate Republican leader said.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalnewsline.com ...
Exactly! RINO’s make me even more mad than the commies.
.......The plaintiffs — state attorneys general and two governors — claim that the insurance mandate violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.......
In typical kneejerk fashion, FReepers yell RINO and give no further thought to what was actually said. They disregard all of the conservative credentialed disclaimer statements included.
The reason given for the likely failure to repeal is the commerce clause. It seems to be not only reasonable view but actually likely. If the only specific reasons given for repeal are related to interstate commerce, I think repeal is likely.
There are several others questioned and those are likely to cause the offensive law to be repealed in total. The ruling will note that if the commerce clause is to have effect, a law must allow insurers to truly engage in interstate commerce and sell across state lines
You have become sheeple
You have already lost
OK..then it’ll be 5to4 to overturn and rule unconstitutional.
If they dont. Then it brings the question of secession. States will NOT allow this to stand.
The precedents I suspect you would provide wont hold here.
Explain where in the constitution it demands an individual must purchase a good?
“The ruling will note that if the commerce clause is to have effect, a law must allow insurers to truly engage in interstate commerce and sell across state lines”
YES!! A person who gets it!
To MAKE REGULAR! The word “regulate” in the time of the writing of the constitution meant to make regular. It now has been bastardized to add the meaning to “control by government.”
Gosh, Frist began as a heart surgeon. Then he became a Senator. And now he has become a lawyer. A slippery slope, all the way down.
They will argue, successfully in my view, that everyone is free to decide if they want to purchase health insurance or pay the tax... Also I would not be so sure it will be a 5-4 decision....
I guess Dr. Frist forgot his old slogan that “Frist will put YOU First.” TN strikes out again!
So we agree. Then it will be more than 5 to 4 to overturn the bill.
The list of TN disappointments is long: Gore, Sr., Gore, Jr., Brock, Baker, Kefauver, Ellington, Sasser; even Frist and Alexander were not that good. And Fred Thompson left early.
Frist and Lamar Alexander have both been blights on the good people of Tennessee. Fortunately pantywaist Frist is now a private citizen, no longer embarrassing the state as Senator. I have high hopes that Alexander can be sent packing when his term ends.
There is no severability clause contained in this bill, if part of it fails, it all goes. That there is no severability clause is specified in Cuccinelli’s lawsuit on behalf of VA.
So you know more than 20 plus states AGs then?
You must be a hell of a lawyer. Why havent you run for AG of your state.
The only sure way to change this is to elect congress critters to change it. In my somewhat old fashioned view the courts should have a minimal role in this..as should be their role in most things.
“Gosh, Frist began as a heart surgeon. Then he became a Senator. And now he has become a lawyer. A slippery slope, all the way down.”
I’ll pass on any legal advice from this sawbones. He should stick to milking his dad’s medical empire and keep his mouth shut about his legal and political opinions.
I’d much rather hear from someone like Robert Bork on the constitutionality of Obummer DeathCare than from Bill Frist.
“He’s probably correct. Its very doubtful the USSC will overturn this.”
That’s not the point...the bill is clearly unconstitutional - but the only reason it might stand is because we no longer enforce those parts of the Constitution...and Frist knows that.
Thus, even if he believes it will stand, he should keep his mouth shut, at least in public, and not give the Court more rationale than they already have given themselves to uphold this garbage. Now they can say: “See, even Republican leaders agree this is constitutional” - and they will say that - worded differently (like, “there’s a consensus now that government programs are good”)...that’s why people like Frist need to simply KEEP QUIET.
One of the worst Senate majority leaders in history.
Lott,Frist, and McConnell. Not a spine between them.
Then it will be upheld in full by the Supreme Court.
This Frist is a detestable rino. His staement was internally contradictory.
“I believe in limited government and individual responsibility, cherish the freedom to choose, and generally oppose individual mandates-except where markets fail, individuals suffer, and society pays a hefty price,” he wrote. “It is time for an individual health insurance mandate for a minimum level of health coverage.”
How can you have a limited federal government and individual liberty with a mandate that (if it is really a mandate and not just a sugestion) is enforced by fine or prison eventually. He might have been a great cardiac surgeon, but in the legal arena he is a lightweight. This sounds like the swan song of another rino when referring to the passage of TARP “I had to do it to save the free market” (GW Bush) Incidentally, FDR also made similar statements in justification of his New Deal programs.
I doubt that this law will be upheld as a tax. Unlike an income tax (which by the 16th amendment can be assessed disproportionately based on individual income), this is a tax on the whole person-a capitation tax. The Constitution requires that capitation taxes are apportioned among the states based on the census population. So it would apply evenly among states based on population and not income. It would for example under-tax those in MS compared to CT because the average income is less in MS than CT. We have never seen anything like this. Additionally, the 2018 tax on “Cadillac” health plans of 40% would then be at tax on a Constitutionally recognized tax which would be another absurdity. You can have multiple taxes on various commodities and services but you can’t have a tax specifically assessed on your income tax (obviously, this does not include penalties which are not taxes per se).
I believe that the commerce clause argument is equally weak. So with the current court make-up, I predict 5-4.
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.