Posted on 06/08/2011 11:16:34 AM PDT by Mount Athos
A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional.
And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product.
"I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits" on the power of the federal government? he asked.
Judge Stanley Marcus appeared to agree. "I can't find any case" in the past where the courts upheld "telling a private person they are compelled to purchase a product in the open market…. Is there anything that suggests Congress can do this?"
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
No, Supreme Court ruling will not be sufficient to stop Obamacare.
It is going to take that ruling AND enforcement, because O is going to ignore that ruling if he doesn’t like it, just like he has ignored anything else that was inconvenient.
Tie this video from a Weiner town hall to the Healthcare Bill, and it's a two-fer.
I guess I still don’t know why the judge did not subsequently issue an injunction even though his ruling was later appealed. Injunctions to prevent further application of a ruling or law are issued all the time when one side appeals. The injunction would have prevented further application of Obamacare until SCOTUS ruled. Any implementation subsequent to the injunction being issued would have resulted in contempt of court rulings and associated punishments.
That's exactly my point. Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is a deadbeat. Some people actually pay their bills. I don't know why our side doesn't bring this point up every time Obama's attorneys drag out that tired old argument.
Yes. As much as I would like to see this law killed ASAP, it might be better from a political point of view to have it hang around until next summer.
There are two dimensions to the illegality of FASCIST Obamacare:
1) As mentioned, the Fed cannot FORCE citizens to buy anything.
2) It is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the 13th Amendment which states “neither SLAVERY nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE...” Obamacare is involuntary servitude. Period.
I cannot be forced into servitude to pay for the health problems of others who may have smoked, didn’t exercise and are overfed like fat cattle.
Arrogance personified.
ZERO can just sign an executive order if they rule it unconstitutional. He needs no law, he is the law.
gnip
This is indeed the issue, how to reconcile the fact that we cannot compel/force people to buy insurance, they can refuse to pay legitimate bills yet the system cannot deny care to someone in need?
Such an approach is unsustainable, hence the idea of a mandate to buy insurance. This mandate is non compatible with our Constitution.
If we are not able to support a mandate, then denying treatment is the only option.
I do not support a mandate to purchase insurance, and hate the idea of Obamacare. But the idea that you can provide unrestricted access to the system and not have anyway to get paid for that service is nonsensical.
schu
Well, a lot of our discussion about the hearing was "angels dancing on the head of pin" lawyer-type stuff.
Apparently, some of the most pointed questions addressed to the government came from Judge Frank Hall (who is a woman, by the way), who is a Clinton appointee.
When the government brought up the point that the mandate had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, she pointed out that of the 50 million or so without insurance, increasing the Medicaid line, prohibiting denial for pre-existing conditions, upping the age for dependent coverage, and other changes in the healthcare bill already covered something like 80% of more of the 50 million who would otherwise be covered by the mandate. In other words, she was suggesting that using 50 million to claim substantial effect was a bogus number. However, there are no cases in which "substantial effect on interstate commerce" has ever been addressed in numerical terms.
One of the other highlights, in my son's eyes, came when the government said that the mandate was crucial part of the law and couldn't be taken out. The same Judge Hull briefly asked him "how" and pointed out that the government had not even attempted to summarize the healthcare law for the Court. The appellee had not attempted to summarize the healthcare law for the Court. And that it was unlikely that anybody from the government arguing for need of the mandate had ever read the 2,700 pages of the healthcare law to know that it was an integral part of the law.
The judges also pointed out that the government had no effective way to enforce the mandate - a $95 fine at a minimum didn't seem like an incentive to buy insurance if a party could choose not to spend hundreds of dollars a month on insurance then, when caught, pay a tiny fine. And, if they fail to buy insurance under the mandate and get sick, get in a major accident, or find themselves with an expensive medical condition, simply pay the fine and then buy insurance since denial for pre-existing conditions is prohibited.
Bear in mind, this is only reporting some of the jabs the court took at the government/appellant.
The full report gets rather technical.
One confused country... the primary issue should not be the DC gang forcing us to buy insurance. It should be that this health _care_ law allows DC to prevent you from acquiring medical treatment needed to save your _life_ ; via _any_ means, if that procedure is not supported by DC gang and its minions.
Since when does DC decide whether I have a right to take a cure, esp. when I spend my own money to get it?
Duh... I say come on and think about it.
I actually considered your comment while I was posting. My only concern is whether or not our country can survive another 18 months without an economic revival.
Of course regardless of whether or not the economy improves before 2012, the dem talking point with be the usual.....”It’s Bush’s fault”.
EODGUY
Who would enforce such an executive order?
This needs to be overturned soon. The damage is already being done by raising taxes and setting up an infrastructure that will not go away. Even though most of it takes place in 2014, taxes are already being raised. Let’s hope this monster is gone soon!
No purchase? No treatment. Just like automotive liability in some states. No insurance = no license.
And what insurance company would be crazy enough to write such a policy under those circumstances?
The same ones who have made other insurance purchases mandatory and had laws written specifically to protect their profit margins. Insurers love selling to a mandatory market especially when they set the price.
I don't agree with those policies but insurance companies own our politicians and have a very deep pocket lobbying power.
I still don’t trust them. They just might be making it look good. Two Clinton appointees and one Bush worry me.
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.