Posted on 03/21/2014 9:53:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Could Citizens United and a semi-colon undo Obamacare?
National Constitution Center By Scott Bomboy 5 hours ago
Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases related to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the stakes are high for both sides. In fact, the interpretation of a semi-colon in the context of the First Amendment could play a critical role.
The semi-colon’s use was argued in the appeals court decision that led one of the two cases to the Supreme Court’s doorstep.
“Appellants also argue that Citizens United is applicable to the Free Exercise [of religion] Clause because ―the authors of the First Amendment only separated the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause by a semi-colon, thus showing the continuation of intent between the two,” said circuit judge Robert Cowen in the Conestoga Wood appeals court decision. “We are not persuaded that the use of a semi-colon means that each clause of the First Amendment must be interpreted jointly.”
In other words, the semi-colon argument holds that the free exercise of religion and free exercise of speech are linked. Since the Citizens United case gave corporations the same free speech rights as people, the argument states that corporations should have the same free religious exercise rights as people, too, and they should be able to opt out of Obamacare.
Judge Cowen didn’t agree with the logic, but now the issue is one of several that will be argued in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
In late November 2013, the Justices accepted the two cases, to be argued at the same time, which question the government’s ability to compel for-profit companies with religious convictions to pay for birth-control coverage.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Right after the portion of the sentence you are focused on it clearly states: “offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required...”.
Re-read it, it refers to people (business owners as a group [like a board of directors], or individuals owning /running a business).
What are businesses or corporations other than groups of people?
This discusses those that provide insurance, not those who wish to be (or not be) insured.
The phrase you are looking at refers to "health insurance issuers" who are offering group or individual coverage.
I entreat you to read it again. Understand the punctuation.
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.
They are seperated by commas. This is what the SCOTUS will be taking up as a case via semi-colons. Commas have just as much stature in diction as its hybrid cousin.
It applies to those “offering group or individual health insurance”.
Here is the section in its entirety:
-
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.”
-
Here is the Free Republic thread on the subject from last January:
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3109998/posts
-
That was one of the biggest shocks in my life.
Punctuation may be his only way back from the blackmail quisling act he foisted upon America.
Nope. I disagree. Similar arguments are made that the RKBA applies only to the militia. Do you agree with that? They both use commas to seperate the clauses. The law is quite clear in that neither individuals, nor issuers of group or individual plans are required to participate. Plain and simple. SCOTUS agrees. We shall see where it goes with semi-colons.
Could a semicolon undo Obamacare?
Only if the judges can figure out What the meaning of “it” is.
1. Woman! Without her, man is a savage.
2. Woman, without her man, is a savage.
I am sorry if you are having trouble parsing the sentence.
No individual,
or company,
or business,
or 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...
You go ahead on and believe whatever it is that you want to believe
if it makes you feel better.
That’s even better than mine!
Didn’t we hear a while ago that expecting proper punctuation is racist?
“Let’s eat, Gramma!”
Punctuation... it saves lives.
"Let's eat Grandma!" vs.
"Let's eat, Grandma!"
How many people will even get that reference?
I did, but I’m getting older...
“So the opposition’s argument is that if I create a Corporation I surrender all of my Constitutional rights in the act of running it?”
I won’t speak to the opposition’s argument, but as far as I know you don’t create a Corporation.
The “state” (meant generically) “creates” a corporation. Whatever you propose as a corporation to the state is not a corporation until the state says so and the state might attach some hooks and strings before saying so.
Well, here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say:
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
No individual shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act...
No company shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act...
No business shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act...
No nonprofit entity shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act...
No 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...
Does that read better for you?
Separate out the comma'd portions and you have proper (and legal) sentence for each.
I do like how you added a comma... clever, but quite wrong.
Wish we could, wish we could....
As nice a person in real life as on stage.
He has the angels giggling now.
I’d agree with you if these rights were only given to corporations which are wholly owned by US citizens. Now, even our enemies are allowed to actively influence our elections through corporations that there own.
I can laugh at comedians who work blue....but I think Borge made me laugh even more.
And yes, probably never a nicer, kinder soul ever in the entertainment industry.
In answer to your question, before the ruling,they already had all of their rights as individuals.
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.