How A Legal Technicality Could Unravel Obamacare

Business Insider ^ | Dec 3 2012 | Lucas Kawa

[PraiseTheLord]

I remember reading on FR that benedict roberts has a problem with his 2 adopted kids - being ILLEGAL - tsk - as from where ? ireland ? hmm via WHERE ?

[RegulatorCountry]

Private adoption, Latin America via Ireland. Anglo looking kids so I’d guess Argentina, maybe.

[ladyjane]

I have never believed that such things actually take place, especially at that high a level

The DC Madam didn't believe they did. The DC Madam's appointments secretary didn't. Vince Foster didn't. Mary Pinchot Meyer didn't. Marilyn Monroe didn't. But maybe General Patraeus knew it did.

[flaglady47]

“In other words, it’s not the job of the Court to save us from the wrongheadedness of those whom we elect to Congress.”

I respectfully disagree, and point to the fact that the Court has ruled on the merits of various legislation multiple times in the past. The SCOTUS is the last bastion between ourselves and a total destruction of our way of life. It is at that point, and Roberts chose to sit on his hands, while the majority of conservatives, even including Kennedy this time, voted that it was unconstitutional. So one rogue Supreme did us in and paved the way for our country becoming a socialist regime. Don’t point to Roberts as being a bastion of conservatism. He’s not, he was a rogue allegedly conservative judge, and he has done extreme damage to our country. You have swallowed, it appears, the justification others are giving Roberts to cover his usurpation of the constitution. I don’t. A legal tax my derriere, especially as the Obama regime went out of its way to say it wasn’t one. To me Roberts is a Benedict Arnold.

[flaglady47]

“In other words, it’s not the job of the Court to save us from the wrongheadedness of those whom we elect to Congress.”

I respectfully disagree, and point to the fact that the Court has ruled on the merits of various legislation multiple times in the past. The SCOTUS is the last bastion between ourselves and a total destruction of our way of life. It is at that point, and Roberts chose to sit on his hands, while the majority of conservatives, even including Kennedy this time, voted that it was unconstitutional. So one rogue Supreme did us in and paved the way for our country becoming a socialist regime. Don’t point to Roberts as being a bastion of conservatism. He’s not, he was a rogue allegedly conservative judge, and he has done extreme damage to our country. You have swallowed, it appears, the justification others are giving Roberts to cover his usurpation of the constitution. I don’t. A legal tax my derriere, especially as the Obama regime went out of its way to say it wasn’t one. To me Roberts is a Benedict Arnold.

[usconservative]

The court will rule that the Congress governs itself and if there is an objection on procedural grounds it must be raised within the Congress. If the rights of the House have been usurped then let the House object. Ordinary citizens have no standing to sue over such matters.

Assuming for the sake of argument you're exactly correct. Makes one wonder just why in the hell Boehner and the Republican House aren't forcing this back into the courts on procedural grounds.

Oops, that's right, Boehner said day after the election that Obamacare is the "law of the land" didn't he?

In my view, that only goes to prove that Obamacare is less about Democrats vs. Republican's, and more about Government controlling every aspect of our lives. The R's and D's are nothing more than red herrings to take our eyes off the fact that this rotten to the core Government of ours is obsessed with having power over our daily lives. The "politics" is just a ruse ... "bread and circuses" for the masses.

[usconservative]

I'm guessing that your post accurately and succinctly sums up what .... 2 maybe 3 semesters of law school on Constitutional Law?

That post is a keeper. Well done.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

my understanding of how they circumvented that requirement was by using “gut and amend” - that is, taking an unrelated bill that had been passed by the House, stripping out the original contents of the bill, and “amending” the bill to include the Obamacare language. Under this process, the bill “technically” still originated in the House. The bill then just has to go back to the House for concurrence on the “amendment”.

Something of the sort must have gone on; I find it difficult to credit that all the uproar and Supreme Court hearing would not have unearthed the simple failure to initiate in the House as specified. Only now it is suddenly an issue???

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

my understanding of how they circumvented that requirement was by using “gut and amend” - that is, taking an unrelated bill that had been passed by the House, stripping out the original contents of the bill, and “amending” the bill to include the Obamacare language. Under this process, the bill “technically” still originated in the House. The bill then just has to go back to the House for concurrence on the “amendment”.

Something of the sort must have gone on; I find it difficult to credit that all the uproar and Supreme Court hearing would not have unearthed the simple failure to initiate in the House as specified. Only now it is suddenly an issue???

[ogen hal]

Constitution...we don’t need no stinkin’ constitution!