Posted on 12/19/2009 1:39:40 PM PST by jsdjason
I'm sure you've all heard this one before, but really this must be the battle cry for the next 3 years. 2010 will be a democrat massacre now that passage of the abomination is all but guaranteed, but it will not be enough because we will not have the numbers to override Zero's veto. Hence, it will again be the battle of cry of Sarah Palin's presidential campaign.
Wonder how long it will take for the first lawsuits to start going through the courts on this bill. Insurance companies can probably start suing very soon. Taxpayer standing to bring suit will depend on when the "tax penalties" are to hit taxpayers. If this applies to 2010 tax returns then suits can almost certainly be brought not long after enactment. However, the lawsuits will most likely not reach the Supreme Court until 2011 at the earliest.
You can repeal it but wouldn’t Obama be able to veto the repeal?
As long as they have the power(and now it seems to be for a long long time) they will do as they please>
Not after he losses in 2012.
The new 2013 president will be able to sign the new bill that repeals this monstrosity.
You need two-thirds in the Senate to override a veto, but I accept the premise that there is no greater battle cry for the GOP over the next several election cycles to UNDO everything this president and this congress has inflicted on American.
Exactly, which is why this battle cry of “repeal the bill” will continue into Sarah Palin’s campaign because she WILL sign the legislation that repeals the bill.
In any event, I’m one semester short of being a lawyer and I think this bill is patently unconstitutional in many respects. The only problem is the length of time that it takes to litigate a case up to the Supreme Court. I have no doubt in my mind that the Conservative 4 will declare it to be unconstitutional and I’m fairly confident that Kennedy will as well. I don’t even think the liberal justices can uphold this POS. You can strongly argue that this bill violates about a dozen Constitutional clauses and amendments. I can’t even list all the claims.
I’m not planning on paying the $1500 tax penalty or whatever it is and I would encourage everyone else to do the same. What are they going to do? Throw us all in jail. Then they’re really asking for it. And if someone actually does get thrown in jail for violating the health care bill then I could actually see many civil lawsuits coming against the United States under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Another example of why this last election was so important, the Supreme Court nominations. I kept hearing all the 20 somethings who were voting for the Messiah based on his skin color say things like “President’s are only for 4 years.” Ignants did not have a clue he would be making Supreme choices that will effect us for decades. Thanks public education for watering down civics.
Although the government does not care what we say and wouldn’t really care if they got sued because money means nothing to them, you can use this as another argument against the health care bill. Private citizens can sue the govt. when they violate a private citizens Constitutional rights. Legal disclaimer: (This post is no way meant to be legal advice, do not take it as such. This is merely meant to stir conversation. My opinions could be flat wrong, and you should not rely on my opinions. I am not a licensed lawyer in any state and there is no such client-lawyer relationship in this post. You could have legal claims that could expire by running of statute of limitations, so you should seek a lawyer as soon as possible to clarify any claims you may be entitled to. Time is of the essence.)
42 U.S.C. 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Another slogan: Revolution, now more than ever.
It requires 2/3rds of Congress. As if we will ever get 2/3rds majority.
All we can do is slow down the growth of it.
And when our boomers age, Medicare costs will be in the trillions and trillions, enough to bankrupt the world.
Sooooo, who is going to vote to eliminate Medicare? Nobody.
Yes. But like I said, I seriously doubt Obama will be reelected in 2012, and a new Repub president will sign the new legislation passed by a newly Repub majority Congress... who will repeal this.
Sooooo, who is going to vote to eliminate Medicare? Nobody.
Medicare will be reestablished as it was before.
And what I said on another thread:
‘It does have an Achilles Heal. This abomination takes years to implement but taxes and payments will start immediately while this thing get dissected and analyzed in the mean time. It will be hanged around the Dems necks for years to come. This crap has a very good chance of being repealed when Obama loses the presidency in 2012.’
Perhaps you can answer a question that I've been wondering about. I recall hearing about pending lawsuits forcing legislation into a holding status. On the first day that this bill goes into effect or when the first dollar is taxed for it there is the opportunity to contest it's constitutionality. As you indicate it'll be years before that process runs it's course. Is there a mechanism to tie it up such that it can't be implemented until the constitutional issue is resolved? Some sort of cease and desist command, so to speak.
Obama will not run in 2012 IMHO. States like Oklahoma are poised to pass a bill that requires proof of native born citizenship to run for President. He is a one termer.
The best time to beat back this obamanation is now. It hasn’t yet been through conference, and we have to maintain a crescendo of opposition as long as there is a chance of putting a spike in its heart. But if it does squeak through, I’m more optimistic than other posters that it could be repealed after a GOP takeover of at least the house in 2010. Congresscritters, after all, value their own self-preservation over anything else, and if house dems are slaughtered in 2010, and the GOP makes major gains or even retakes the senate (unlikely), we may see a repeat of the late 80’s section 89 debacle, a brain-child of Dan Rostenkowski and the dems which was an earlier attempt to finagle expanded coverage. Section 89 was so complex, and so infuriated Americans, that it was ingloriously repealed by a still-democrat dominated legislature by an overwhelming vote of 390 to 36.
While it would be almost impossible to claw back government giveaways once they are under way, the fact that the senate plan, in order to artificially reduce the ten-year cost, front loads the taxes while putting off most of the benefits until 2012 and beyond, may increase the prospect of this occurring. Obama might even feel compelled to sign a repeal if the 2010 election results make it clear that this health care debacle dooms any chance he has for a second term.
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.