Posted on 11/26/2012 7:48:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A decision by the Supreme Court this morning opens up a potential new avenue of attack against ObamaCare on the grounds of religious liberty — and not just the HHS contraception mandate. The court overturned the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Liberty University over the health-system overhaul, in a move that was not opposed by the Obama administration in court:
The Supreme Court has revived a Christian college’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration.
The court on Monday ordered the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to consider the claim by Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that Obama’s health care law violates the school’s religious freedoms. …
The school made a new filing with the court over the summer to argue that its claims should be fully evaluated in light of the high court decision. The administration said it did not oppose Liberty’s request.
Liberty is challenging both the requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, and a separate provision requiring many employers to offer health insurance to their workers.
The appeals court could ask the government and the college for new legal briefs to assess the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on Liberty’s claims before rendering a decision.
Why didn’t the White House oppose LU’s motion? The timing issue is now largely moot, thanks to that 5-4 decision that upheld the individual mandate as a tax. The lawsuit would have been refiled shortly in any case, which would have only provided a slight delay to the inevitable.
This lawsuit differs from the previous cases used by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the law. None of the earlier plaintiffs brought up the religious-liberty issue, in large part because HHS hadn’t formulated its arrogant posture that the government can define religious expression. With the HHS contraception mandate now in place, the violation of the First Amendment has now become concrete, and the courts will soon have to decide just how to square the language that that clearly stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with the HHS regulation that attempts to restrict religious exercise to only within the walls of a church, synagogue, or temple.
Getting that addressed sooner is a victory in the short run for everyone. Let’s hope that the appeals courts and the Supreme Court recognize the violation sooner rather than later, too, before the Obama administration forces religious organizations to close doors on hospitals, clinics, charities, and schools.
He knew this was a possibility before he ever accepted the position. If he was going to cave like he did, then he should have said NO.
Thank God our Founding Fathers were made of sterner stuff.
Hey, CJ Roberts!! Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me!!
I don’t think anything will change.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/eric-burns/muslims-exempt-from-obamacare/
Bearing in mind that ZeroCare does not contain a severability clause, this couldn't be the case. If one part goes the whole house of cards falls.
Too bad I have no confidence in the USSC to do the right, and clearly Constitutional, thing.
I’ve watched that, but I’m more excited about regaining control over the Commerce and N&P Clauses. Please keep me posted and I do hope you’re correct.
Great job in electing Romney and Bozo. :)
Yup...
I will keep you informed as to what happens when
as far as fubocare, the first people to be hit with the so called penalty (tax) happens in 2014...
you cannot approach the court for damages until someone is actually damaged..
with all the exceptions written into this law, it is in no way “equitable”..
either the tax will be overturned in it’s entirety (effectively wiping out fubocare) or, those that got their nifty exemptions will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us...
the kicker is, even if this monstrosity gets overturned, the ruling will still stand...
pretty cool, huh?
HEY!!!.... :)
“Bearing in mind that ZeroCare does not contain a severability clause, this couldn’t be the case. If one part goes the whole house of cards falls.”
I don’t think the severability clause means that there can be no changes in the law. There have been numerous references to congress changing various aspects. Severablity doesnt mean immutable.
You’re right, it doesn’t mean that. But it does mean that if one part is declared unconstitutional, it can’t be ‘severed’ from the rest of the law. So it all goes down.
In theory, anyway.
“You’re right, it doesn’t mean that. But it does mean that if one part is declared unconstitutional, it can’t be ‘severed’ from the rest of the law. So it all goes down.”
That would be awesome but then I have to wonder why the regime is not fighting to keep it out of the SC?
I think he would have wiped Obama in all three debates.
It’s been suggested, and I don’t recall if it was on this thread, that the regime knows the result of any decision and simply wants that little matter of religious interference cleared up once and for all.
Don’t know that I’m that much of a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps you are, but I do think no one has the will — judicial or otherwise — to stop the abomination from ruining our health care system.
*************************************EXCERPT************************************
In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute making it a crime for a farmer to produce more wheat than was allowed under price controls and production controls, even if the excess production was for the farmer's own personal consumption. The Necessary and Proper Clause was used to justify the regulation of production and consumption.[8]
“Don’t know that I’m that much of a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps you are, but I do think no one has the will — judicial or otherwise — to stop the abomination from ruining our health care system.”
I’m not a conspiracy theorist at all, however it is odd that the ball always seems to bounce the way the left wants it to, sometimes in a very strange manner.
**************************************EXCERPT***************************************
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act cannot be upheld under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his ruling that the mandate cannot "be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. [...] The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective."[9] David B. Kopel, an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Denver University, says this ruling returns the Necessary and Proper clause to its original interpretation outlined by John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland. He states that the clause grants Congress no additional powers, but "simply restates the background principle that Congress can exercise powers which are merely “incidental” to Congress’s enumerated powers."[10] Kopel examples this by referring to Congress enumerated power to establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States. He says because Congress has been expressly given the power to establish the rules of bankruptcy by the Constitution, Congress can also enact laws against bankruptcy fraud.[10]
42 USC § 18115 - Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs
No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18115?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8
Implied links from Wikipedia articles do not function....go the article linked at post #74.
One method of persuading compliance is to deluge someone with requirements, including a tiny note amounting to “you don’t have to comply”. Most people get so caught up in the verbiage they don’t notice, and won’t let go of the frenzy even if they do find it.
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.