Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
4,544
Likes
766
Location
MA
The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.
Huh?
So his argument is that two centuries of wrongs make a right?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
11,119
Likes
3,520
Huh?
So his argument is that two centuries of wrongs make a right?
Sounds like typical liberal thinking. Remind him that for two centuries the governments (first England, then the United States) treated people like they were property based on their skin color. Since they did it for two centuries, that must make that practice "generally accepted" as well. Wrong does not become "right" simply because you do it for a long enough time.
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
2,528
Likes
432
Location
Dodge Mahal
The appeals court only ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The rest of the law was deemed okay.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a provision in President Obama's health care law requiring citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, but didn't strike down the rest of the law.
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,762
Likes
1,432
Location
Southcoast of PRM
Sounds like typical liberal thinking. Remind him that for two centuries the governments (first England, then the United States) treated people like they were property based on their skin color. Since they did it for two centuries, that must make that practice "generally accepted" as well. Wrong does not become "right" simply because you do it for a long enough time.
This. Just because the government has a long history of overstepping its bounds doesn't make it right. Gun ownership is generally acceptable, but some levels of government have a problem with it. I guess "generally accepted" should only be followed when it suits your agenda.

The appeals court only ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The rest of the law was deemed okay.
Didn't the supporters of Obamacare say that it was unworkable without the individual mandate? If SCOTUS upholds that decision I'm sure that the proponents of Obamacare will be working to repeal the whole thing. After all, why keep a law on the books that you know is unworkable?

I won't hold my breath.
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
2,739
Likes
433
Location
Hopkinton, MA
What we really need (apparently) is an amendment to the constitution clarifying for all the fans of big government just exactly how limited the interstate commerce commerce clause was intended to be. Read the Federalist Papers. The framers wanted to ensure free and fair trade between the states. It wasn't meant to be a license for the federal government to intrude into every aspect of an individual's life. We owe that sorry legacy to a 1942 flawed ruling by SCOTUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
1,610
Likes
299
Location
Hanover, MA
I am hoping that this is the start of the end of OB care. I am not sure if the pubs will thow out the whole thing, if /when they have control of congress.
 
Rating - 45.5%
1   6   4
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
7,842
Likes
1,880
Apparently the DOJ had their little response... [rolleyes]

Something along the lines of "we strongly disagree and will take further steps" IE: We are going to do what we want, what does checks and balances mean anyways?
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
2,528
Likes
432
Location
Dodge Mahal
IIRC, there was no severability clause, so if one part fails, it all fails.
Incorrect, that is NOT what the appeals court ruled today.

Federal appeals court deals a blow to President Obama's health care law, ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but also saying that it does not invalidate rest of law.
 

Blitz1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
20,019
Likes
2,657
Location
Metro West
What we really need (apparently) is an amendment to the constitution clarifying for all the fans of big government just exactly how limited the interstate commerce commerce clause was intended to be. Read the Federalist Papers. The framers wanted to ensure free and fair trade between the states. It wasn't meant to be a license for the federal government to intrude into every aspect of an individual's life. We owe that sorry legacy to a 1942 flawed ruling by SCOTUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
What difference would that make?

They ignore The Constitution to begin with. [hmmm]
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,863
Likes
13,087
If the entire argument is centered around interstate commerce then it will probably have no bearing on Romney-care.
The interstate commerce clause has been so twisted that the mere fact that doctors use materials supplied from out of state in treating you is probably sufficient to declare that Romney Care is simply regulation of interstate commerce.
 
Top Bottom