US files first defense of health care law in court

google ^ | 5/12/10 | RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

[Nachum]

WASHINGTON — Critics who allege that Congress overstepped the U.S. Constitution by requiring Americans to carry health insurance are "flatly wrong," the Obama administration said Wednesday in its first court defense of the landmark health care law.

Congress acted well within its power to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare, Justice Department lawyers argued in a 46-page brief filed in federal district court in Detroit. For the courts to overturn President Barack Obama's signature domestic legislation would amount to unwarranted interference with the policymaking authority of Congress, they added.

[Nachum]

And now it begins

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[tacticalogic]

Overturn Wickard v Filburn!

[tacticalogic]

As for the tax penalty for refusing to get coverage, the Obama administration argued that it falls squarely within the authority of Congress to levy taxes.

But they keep telling us it's not a tax.

[wny]

"Congress acted well within its power to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare"

They can't be thta stupid. If I'm not buying insurance, then there's no "commerce". And if I am buying insurance, that would be "commerce", but I'm prohibited by law from buying it a in a state I don't live in. So that wouldn't be "interstate commerce".

ANd if Congress is to provide the general welfare, whwre's my food? and clothes? etc..

[Man50D]

The people are the government, not the White House, not Congress and not SCOTUS. They operate only at the consent of the governed. The governed are saying they will not accept Obamacare that defies the will of the people.

[Tarpon]

Shall we be forced to buy a government motors clunker next?

And who says the federal reparations, known as health care rationing, is Constitutional.

I suspect the Obama regime is flatly wrong.

Point out which of the 19 things the government can do encompasses this abomination?

[freedumb2003]

“and to provide for the general welfare”

To liberals, that excerpt FROM THE PREAMBLE (which explains WHY the document exists), is the entirety of the Constitution of the United States. The rest, including the Bill Of Rights is so much “blah blah blah.”

[ColdOne]

As for the tax penalty for refusing to get coverage, the Obama administration argued that it falls squarely within the authority of Congress to levy taxes So now it is a tax?

[traditional1]

" regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare"

WRONG on its face....the words are "promote the general welfare", NOT "provide for the general welfare".

THESE are the people who think the Constitution PROVIDES FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE, in the pic below....

Additionally, Congress has NO AUTHORITY TO FORCE PURCHASE OF ANYTHING, even under the over-used, and IMPROPERLY APPLIED Interstate Commerce Clause.

And, to quote the exact words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, verbatim:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[Ethrane]

Since this is 'quoted', I'm going to assume it is verbatim:

"Congress determined that the health care system in the United States is in crisis, spawning public expense and private tragedy," said the government's brief. "After decades of failed attempts, Congress enacted comprehensive health care reform to deal with this overwhelming national problem. The minimum coverage provision is vital to that comprehensive scheme. Enjoining it would thwart this reform and re-ignite the crisis that the elected branches of government acted to forestall."

If this is the best the gov't. lawyers got, I want to be at the USSC for the hearing.

If the government doesn't like the expense, they shouldn't have gotten into the health care game in the first place...it is largely the government's interventions into what should be a 'private' market that escalated prices to begin with. And as far as 'private tragedy'? Is private tragedy now grounds to usurp the US Constitution?

The government screws up the system, then complains of national tragedy...lovely...and of course, they are just the idiots to solve the tragedy with...an abomination of a health care bill that is unconstitutional. This really should be a sitcom!

[PubliusMM]

“Congress acted well within its power to regulate interstate commerce and to provide for the general welfare...”

And, just as expected, the two foundational legal tenets on which they will rest their case are these...the most misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misconstrued notions in the history of the nation.

It’s time to take back the country. Starting with a proper interpretation of the founding documents is a good idea.

[ExTexasRedhead]

War declared against We The People and our Constitution. A first in American History conducted by an anti-American illegal and his cohorts in Congress.

[ExTexasRedhead]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=66235B7DDFED538C

[sergeantdave]

“Congress acted well within its power to ...provide for the general welfare, Justice Department lawyers argued...

Really? Where is “general welfare” defined?

Some people might think “general welfare” is two chickens in a pot, a Cadillac in the garage, Kobe steak on the dinner plate, or 10,000 rounds for your M-60.

Obuma’s people are low class ghetto morons. Give them a bottle of MD 20-20 and call it “general welfare.”

[Natural Born 54]

Two very different meanings. Good eye.

[JSteff]

Not to mention there is no ability for the purchaser to use “due - diligence” on the service or item purchased. There is no warranty nor promise to perform.... etc, etc.

In fact there is NO product nor actual service the will happen until a future date. What about if a purchaser dies or changes their mind prior to delivery of the service or item purchased?

Now what purchaser in their right mind would enter into a purchase under these terms? (Except a dem buying Kool Aid?)

[traditional1]

"In fact there is NO product nor actual service the will happen until a future date."

Well said; kinda makes one think the same as ANY insurance (no claim; no service), or Social Security or Medicare deductions, which are future entitlements, but may NEVER be realized, NOR are there any guarantees that the product you will ultimately receive will be of the quality or quantity you were promised initially?

The whole idea of funding the benefits of others, through collection of the funds from someone else, is KEY to a socialist/communist government.

[JSteff]

No sorry. The "insurance policy is usually offered from an insurance company" regulated and monitored by the states' insurance commission.

They will usually get your money back in the event of fraud. And send the fraudsters to jail or heavily fine them. Will that happen to the U.S. Government if their policy is defective (by accident or deliberately)?

[mo]

“So now it is a tax?”

By their own admission it ain’t healthcare.....suckers!!!