Posted on 10/17/2010 6:45:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The White House is dismissing the threat of nearly two dozen legal challenges from the states against President Obama's health care reforms, equating its defense of mandatory health insurance with landmark court fights over civil rights and Social Security.
"This is nothing new," Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president for special projects, said on the White House blog.
"We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act - constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all of those challenges failed," Cutter said.
A Pensacola, Fla., judge last week ruled that a case brought by 20 states challenging the constitutionality of health care reform can go forward. A separate lawsuit is progressing in Virginia.
At issue in most of the cases is the so-called individual mandate, and whether Congress has the right to compel consumers to buy insurance or face a government penalty.
Under the 10-year, $938 billion law passed by Congress and signed by Obama in March, those without insurance would face penalties of $95 or 1 percent of his or her income, whichever is higher, in 2014. The annual penalty increases in 2016 to $695 for an adult or up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher.
Those exempted from the requirement include the very poor, American Indians, the incarcerated, and those who refuse on religious grounds, among others.
Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute, predicted the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide the matter, but, because of the lengthy appeals process, it likely won't be decided until just before the 2012 presidential elections.
"At this stage I am cautiously optimistic," said Shapiro, whose institution filed two briefs supporting Virginia's challenge of the law. "At this point the courts are saying the plaintiffs are bringing serious charges, it is heartening."
Some states argue that the law significantly expands Medicaid coverage and amounts to an unfunded federal mandate that will further stress cash-strapped state budgets. The Justice Department maintains that Congress was within its power in passing the sweeping reform measure, Obama's most significant legislative accomplishment to date.
A judge in Michigan recently threw out a similar challenge to the law. Cutter noted that the Michigan judge observed that those who opt out of buying insurance often end up in the hospital anyway -- with the cost passed on to the care provider, the insured or the government.
Despite numerous legal challenges, the federal government is implementing the Affordable Care Act on schedule.
Provisions allowing parents to keep children on their policies until the age of 26, easing preventative care costs for mammograms, flu shots and other procedures, and a ban on the practice of canceling coverage for pre-existing conditions are already in place.
In addition to legal remedies, health care reform is likely to face a repeal effort if Republicans make big gains in Congress next month.
In other words, “I am God. What I say, goes.”
Unconstitutional... If the government can’t tell a woman whether to have an abortion, it certainly can’t tell me whether to have a tonsilectomy.
When the federal government rules on its own powers, they distort the Constitution to mean whatever they want. They have been doing this forever.
The federal government was created by the states, to aid the states, not control them...
It is obviously unconstutional because it does not fall under one of the enumerated powers... but the states cannot win. The Commerce clause was written just to ensure that trade between states occured in a normal manner. “Regulate” meant something different in 1789, but the feds will distort this so that they can maintain power over the states.
My own preference, in any case, would be for the states that do not support this despotic legislation (which is to say, most of them) to invoke the doctrine of nullification--and thereby refuse to honor the law--if necessary, provoking a constitutional confrontation in the process.
Something the DUmocrats have down to a SCIENCE! A vote for the JACKASS party is a sumbission and surrender to the SLAVE-OCRACY!
They don’t own them all.
And the High Court has 4 likely on our side and 1 who is a genuine swing Justice but leans slightly more right. Obama hasn’t been too nice to him either and these Justices can hold grudges. Would have been in his best interest not to antagonize Kennedy but he just couldn’t help himself.
It’s no sure thing since Kennedy isn’t guided by the same principles of the others but slightly better odds in our favor then Obama’s favor.
It took over 10 years to undo McCain/Finegold and they said it couldn’t be undone.....its history now....I believe the same thing will happen to gov’t health care, it just takes time for the S C to set things straight....you just keep fighting it in the courts....
As the bill was signed into law Congress and Emperor Obama made it very clear that the penalty was not a tax. But, when the opening arguments were made the Government lawyers stated that the penalty clause was legal because the Federal Government (Congress et al) could levy taxes.
The judge involve threw the BS flag and said the case would continue because the Federal Lawyers opening state was based on clearly demonstrable lies (sworn statements that contradicted Federal Law).
This case looks like it is going to be fun. Who is telling the truth - the DOJ (the penalties are taxes and are justified) or Congress (who created a whole new way of raising money not covered by the Constitution). May the Supreme Court announce its decision 1 Oct 2012.
This worries me. If its constitutional to let the gov’t force you to buy a retirement program (SS), why wouldn’t it be constitutional to force you to buy healthcare?
Great point. Now if we just could have undone McCain!
The law itself calls it a “penalty” and the language does meet the test for it to be a tax.
Wouldn’t it be cool if we got other COUNTRIES to sue the obama administration....kinda like other countries are suing Arizona.
So many foreigners come here for excellent medical care (that won’t be available anymore under obamacare), that I think they’d have as much of a case as The Won thinks other countries have against Arizona.
I can dream, can’t I?
So?
The two women from New England is understandable because of the liberal citizens of those states....(Snowe and Collins)
As usual, they get their information wrong. Obamacare is mandated health care, with fines if not purchased.
Pre Roe v Wade, who would have believed it would be legal to murder babies?
Flemming v. Nestor (1960)
You actually have NO right to Social Security.
Leftists abound on circuit and district courts. As for SCOTUS, they know that Kagan will recuse herself on nearly half of cases, including this one. That leaves us with ties on the high court, resulting in lower court decisions standing.
What most missed is that the nation chose 1-party rule in Nov/08. All things changed - nothing is the same. And, no - we aren’t just in a cycle.
once you KNOW someone is delusional, you can pretty much ignore what they say about everything.....
As for a civil war, I also believe He would order the Army to mow down the opposition, just like the Chinese did in the square. They are dangerous, fanatical, entitled, and in power.
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.