http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/...tional/?hpt=T2
Yeah, it's headed for the Supremes. And it'll go 5-4, one way or t'other.
Another damn activist judge.
BTW, for anyone who actually studies history, John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers, made it mandatory for merchant marines[[who were private sailors) to pay a tax[[sounds like he forced them to buy insurance) for care at a mariner's hospital. If it was good enough for one of the founder's, it should be good enough for any judge who actually wants to follow the framers of the Constitution.
He sure did.
Wow, a judge who actually based a case of what the Constitution actually says instead of on imaginative interpretations and precedents. Judge Vinson should be on a short list for the Supreme Court.
The Wall Street Journal had a piece concerning this ruling about how the "Obama administration attempted to cloak an unprecedented and unsupportable exercise of federal power in the guise of a run-of-the-mill Commerce Clause regulation."
The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling -WSJ
I agree with what mjs wrote on the 'Obama don't care' thread.Quote:
They wrote the Tenth Amendment to ensure it would be a limited government the author speaks of operating within the jurisdiction of its limited powers. ...The Constitution was a document written to limit the Federal government. And the founding fathers did foresee it would need changes over time so they actually did write a way to deal with that. They call it an amendment process and before FDR, it was how the Costitution was changed. Prohibition was an amendment, not a law, because it wasn't mentioned in the rest of the Constitution so was specifcally excluded from Federal jurisdiction under the Tenth Amendment.
If Judge Vinson's ruling survives, there is hope that it can be applied to other matters such as the court ruling that corporations are legal persons. Maybe Judge Vinson will give other jurists the backbone they need to enforce the Constitution.
Again, What's the big deal? If you want a single payer plan, do it at the state level instead of waiting for crumbs from the lobbyists' table in Washington, D.C.. I have to believe, from what I see, that there are more people oriented to propping up their man or party than getting a universal coverage and affordable health care plan.
The constitution has nothing to do with this. Nothing. That's right wing nut speak for we're going to destroy it. Anything they want to destroy they declare UNconstitutional. And anything they can't legislate, delegislate, defund or destroy will be declared whatever they'd like by the supremes.
You should tell the great judge Vinson, who was appointed by the great Ronald Reagan, it has nothing to do with constitutional issues, I'm sure he will agree and reverse his decision.
Bills also have to originate in the House, which is also unconstitutional because of Dirty Harry Reid.
Where is this type of enthusiasm for jobs, from the party of no?
Health Care Reform is not unconstitutional. The Judge is listening to republican lies. It will NOT be appeal.
What? Its a tax? We were told again and again during the build up to the vote that itQuote:
Originally Posted by Detroitej72
wasn't a tax. Hmmm why the change? Come on Kennedy you invalidated no guns in school zones--
The commerce clause must have its limitations here.
Frustrating, isn't it, when someone points our what the Constitution says. There is always some kid causing a lot of trouble by pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes or, at least, has no authority to do as he pleases. For too long liberals and neocons have mutually agreed to give only lip service to observing the Constitution. How do you think our leaders have given away our jobs, gotten into ill defined and frivolous wars, transferred wealth from workers to the elites, and otherwise bankrupted this country? It's interesting that you suggest the Constitution as being the property of the right but it was Bush who supposedly made the remark about 'that g- d- piece of paper' when it got in his way too.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive
You speak of a tax for a public hospital. That is not a fine for not buying a private service. Similarly, they can make you pay social security, a public service. However, they can not make you buy an IRA from their handlers at Goldman Sachs. Do you guys realize that every rule that protects the public from runaway liberal government also protects it from runaway conservative government and vice-versa?Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitej72