Posted on 01/31/2011 3:16:14 PM PST by gaexaminer
In his decision in the case of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson stated that the "individual mandate" which would force consumers to purchase some form of health insurance was in violation of the Commerce Clause and cited numerous examples where such government expansion of powers was deemed to be out of order. He also stated that "(I)t would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivtity under the Commerce Clause" which could then extend beyond any rational enumeration of powers set forth in the Constitution.
Next up is a ruling that the Kenyan fraud is ineligible to be POTUS and all legislation passed under his watch is declared null and void.
Tell you really took the time to search or scroll to notice that other threads already exist?
=8-)
BUMP
I am all about ridding Obamacare, but I also believe that those risk not having health care should NOT be guaranteed treatment when they report to the hospital unless they pull out a credit card or quickly get a loan from the bank. Why should we pay for those who don’t want insurance. That is the only good part of the Obamacare. It ensured that taxpayers were not stuck paying for folks who did not want to pay for health care. That ONE area is amazing that conservatives are against and has amazed me through this entire process. I thought conservatives were for self sufficiency. Well if a person is not forced to have Health Care, they won’t. So when they get sick, who pays for it????? We do. I am sick of paying other people’s health care while they take their vacations to Tahiti.
In less than 3 months you are the posting monitor. Good work.
I’ve read a bunch of threads on this, but this didn’t percolate to the top of my head until I was reading this one:
Sure, the judge made the right decision, but the “Big F%#$@$ Deal” is the text of his reasoning. He nails the ramifications of letting UrkelCare stand as well as the support for his ruling really well.
This part of the ruling should warm the DEMs hearts though.
If he had, I and others would not have seen the article.
By the way, what's up with "=8-)"
It may next turn out that 0bama himself is unconstitutional.
>>This part of the ruling should warm the DEMs hearts though<<
Provided they get another supermajority. :)
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.