Yay!
Posted on 06/28/2012 12:35:20 PM PDT by Chris in VA
Everyone needs to step back and actually look at the decision the Supreme Court made about Obamacare before doing anything.
From the majority opinion:
“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part …”
This clearly shows that the Court is saying there are issues with the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanlivewire.com ...
Then vote in November to repeal the whole thing.
Not enough. The Roberts Court has so overreached that impeachment hearings need to start on January 21, 2013 to impeach Roberts and the other thugs in black robes that voted for the majority position. We need to strike terror into the hearts of federal judges from this time and forever. Enough.
Yup. It is the enslavement of america act.
“Everyone needs to take a moment to look at the entire decision by the Court.”
I have. Finished it about an hour ago. It’s as bad as we suspected from the news reports:
(1) The taxing power of congress has been held to be able to be able to regulate any activity or inactivity. So Congress could impose a $20,000 penalty on people who do not buy a Chevy Volt. That is almost certainly constitutional under this decision.
(2) This applies even if Congress calls it a penalty, not a tax, and even if the sponsors of the bill deny that it is a tax.
(3) The entire regulatory apparatus of Obamacare survives completely intact.
(4) Even if Obamacare is repealed, Congress’ powers under the taxation clause have been greatly expanded.
The Decision: The decision is a damning declaration that the law – as written – has numerous issues in it on legal grounds. The implication is that the Court is recommending to the government that they fix the issues with the law before it is implemented. This is going to go back to the courts. It is going to go back to Congress to fix all of the problems in it. Despite what Obama has said in his speech, this is NOT over!
I think that is what the court is saying — Congress can not unilaterally implement healthcare. Nor can they punish states who do not either.
This is going back to the courts and to Congress — it is far from over.
Note that the Medicaid decision is a major defeat for the Food Stamp President. He cannot punish the states for not expanding their Medicaid programs. I don’t think many people really realize how big of a budget buster this was going to be. This is the part of the law where the Food Stamp President was going to stick all the illegal immigrants on socialized medicine.
I am not in favor of the decision to uphold the mandate simply by calling it a tax, but the decision that the States cannot be coerced into covering the poor through Medicaid could be a game-changer.
Any other way they attempt to fund it becomes an open tax, instead of a hidden one. States could simply opt out. Yes, Obama could figure some other punitive method to get states to comply, but this becomes a huge political problem for him.
Now that this is a tax, the whole law could be invalid because Obamacare orginated in the Senate, and only the House can originate tax bills. It will have to be voted on again in both the House and the Senate, and no Dem wants to go through this again. This is why Cantor has called for a vote. Am I wrong about this?
If ObamaCare cannot force states to expand Medicare and states chose not to expand it, what happens to those people? Are they then required to purchase insurance or pay a fine??
Thanks in advance for a reply.
I think the courts will be the first place this goes — get an injunction to stop the implementation of this law while the new legal case is settled.
Then the Congress has to retake this up as an issue — the House is guaranteeing that with the repeal vote.
Romney should then hammer home the fact that this is a major tax increase.
This is a great point! Read carefully!
Verbatim from the transcript:
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause”
SO: Whether or not it’s called a TAX, IT IS STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
I would think that nothing would happen to the states — the decision states that Congress cannot punish for non-compliance.
As for the people, they would be forced to pay the fine — I think since the mandate is now a tax.
I think that as long as the states are the ones who have to take the lead in implementing this — then the commerce clause is a moot point. (If this were done on the federal level, I think the entire law would have been struck down.)
Congress does have the power to tax — so they can tax people on an individual basis for not having insurance. The thing is that the Democrats will now have to defend this as the largest tax increase in American history.
I think that is the point entirely.
It is a tax — How are people going to react to it being a tax?
I am not an attorney, but I think you are incorrect. It is a tax as declared by the Supreme Court, affirmed by then and therefore valid. It wasn't returned to the lower courts for any action or anywhere else. The upcoming House vote on repeal is purely symbolic and for the fall campaign. It is unlikely to even come up to a vote in the Senate under Reid. The only way out of this mess is a new Congress and President who pass a repeal bill that is signed by the President IMO.
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.