The whole damn thing is VOID. This is going to the US Supreme Court, folks. Congress cannot force individuals to buy something. It doesn't matter what it is. The Constitution does not permit this. Ok, liberals fire away.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_1
This doesn't actually void the law. It's going to the SCOTUS, who can void it or not.
Oh Barry wrote:
The Constitution does not permit this.
The constitution did not permit women to vote originally.
Funny how the Republicans were all in favor of it back when it was their idea. Not a peep about constitutionality then.
I wonder if anyone would like to come out against the law in Kennesaw, Georgia. You know, that's the town that requires each household to own a gun (with certain exceptions). Sure sounds unconstitutional to me.
Oh Barry wrote:
The whole damn thing is VOID. This is going to the US Supreme Court, folks. Congress cannot force individuals to buy something. It doesn't matter what it is. The Constitution does not permit this. Ok, liberals fire away.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_1
If you read the article, 2 judges have ruled it unconstitutional, while 2 have ruled it constitutional.
BTW, Congress can force people to pay for health care. The 5th Congress did it in 1798. It passed constitutional muster then. John Adams - one of Founding Fathers - signed it.
Oh shit! Tea Party starting to implode...
care to provide a source for your claim that congress required people to pay for health care in 1798? i find it very hard to believe considering that nobody even had electricity back then and health insurance companies didn't exist. moreover, what did you think it covered? paying someone to tie your tooth to a door before he slammed it shut to deal with a cavity? this sounds like complete bs.
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
Funny how the Republicans were all in favor of it back when it was their idea. Not a peep about constitutionality then.
What exactly are you talking about?
X-Runner wrote:
The constitution did not permit women to vote originally.
Which is why we amended it... that's the whole point of the Constitution, it can be amended if there is necessity. However, it was also designed so that it would be difficult to amend; it takes more than a slight popular majority for it to be amended, there has to be serious consensus that this is the thing to do.
The Constitution was designed so it could be amended, not circumvented.
asdgfh wrote:
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:Funny how the Republicans were all in favor of it back when it was their idea. Not a peep about constitutionality then.
What exactly are you talking about?
The version of Obamacare that passed is nearly identical to the health care plan proposed by Republican senators in the 1990's.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/28/health_insurance_mandate_began_as_a_republican_idea/I could care less what liberal Republicans proposed in the 1990s. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
That traitor. Intentionally weakening America is tantamount to treason. That judge should be impeached.
Two words: Necessary and proper.
The commerce clause is not the sole basis of Federal power over the states.
The
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
I wonder if anyone would like to come out against the law in Kennesaw, Georgia. You know, that's the town that requires each household to own a gun (with certain exceptions). Sure sounds unconstitutional to me.
This would be unconstitutional if the Federal Government tried to make this a law because this power is not given to th Gov under the constitution. And, because it is not granted under the consititution, the power is then delegated to the Individual State of Gerogia (a la, the 10th amendment). Therefore this becomes a individual state matter, whether or not Georgia allows/gives the power of the city to make this law.
Good try though, :P
I Know Better wrote:
I could care less what liberal Republicans proposed in the 1990s. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
The Heritage Foundation is full of liberal Republicans? They fully endorsed the individual mandate.
What a coward. 9 years into the War on Terrorism and the judge helps Al Quaeda weaken the US population. That preppy judge obviously never served in the Unites States Army.
Precious Roy wrote:
Two words: Necessary and proper.
The commerce clause is not the sole basis of Federal power over the states.
Wow, what amazing insight. If only Judge Vinson hadn't forgotten about the Necessary and Proper Clause in his 78 page opinion. Then he would've upheld the PPACA.
Oh, wait. Turns out that "Necessary and Proper" appears 34 times in the opinion. Maybe you should read it. You might learn something about the Constitution.
Obama sucks. He won't slap down on un-American judges who want to destroy our American way of life. The Islamists are winning.
Ignoring all of the nuts and bolts of Obama care, I'm interested to know why so many are against the clause that all individuals have health care. The opposing choice is that 40% of Americans don't have health care and the rest of us have to foot the bill when they get sick. In many ways thats similar to a tax - and we all know how republicans feel about taxes.
query wrote:
Ignoring all of the nuts and bolts of Obama care, I'm interested to know why so many are against the clause that all individuals have health care. The opposing choice is that 40% of Americans don't have health care and the rest of us have to foot the bill when they get sick. In many ways thats similar to a tax - and we all know how republicans feel about taxes.
Personally I am in favor of eliminating EMTALA. People do not have a right to have health care, even emergency health care. Health care is a good like others, it is not exempt from the rules of the free market.
Keith Stone wrote:
asdgfh wrote:What exactly are you talking about?
The version of Obamacare that passed is nearly identical to the health care plan proposed by Republican senators in the 1990's.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/03/28/health_insurance_mandate_began_as_a_republican_idea/
If you're talking just about the individual mandate (which I guess is the key to the constitutionality), then they are quite similar. But Obamacare as a whole, goes far beyond what that bill did.
Note that the bill didn't have the support of a majority of the Republican senators at the time. And the Republicans behind that bill are largely gone and some of them aren't even Republicans anymore, such as Specter and Durenberger. The author of the bill was John Chafee who died in 1999, but going by where is son is at (Governor of Rhode Island), I'd assume he wouldn't be a Republican today either.