jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (41 posts)

Florida judge- Obamacare unconstitutional!

  1. lady_love158 profile image61
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    Unfortunately the law remains on the books while the government appeals. This is a travesty of justice, a slap in the face of freedom!!!

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You mean the health-uncare bill is a travesty, right?
      Then I agree.

      Yep, the appeals process isn't always Constitutional either, I think.   In the hands of liberals, it simply buys time for nonsensical lawsuits.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Carp

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Horse doody!  big_smile

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sarah Palin

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Joe Bad'un.

              Er...Joe Biden.

            2. lady_love158 profile image61
              lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I love her too! And Michelle Bachmann

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm sure you do.

      2. lady_love158 profile image61
        lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No the judge is allowing the law to stay on the books while it's appealed... that is the travesty especially if this can be dragged out until 2014!

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes it's a rotten way of doing lawmaking.    While, the issues that should wait (like Rahm Emanuel's eligibility to be on the ballot) get approved right away.   Stinks.   Our government's hands are tied by the liberal agenda and liberal judges most of the time.

        2. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          He has to. After all Schumer just removed the Judiciary as an official branch of our government.......when your wielding that kind of power a Judge takes notice!LOL

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9g … r_embedded

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Say again?
            Who/what removed the Judiciary?

            1. profile image60
              C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              In the video Schumer states that there are three branches of government....The House, The Senate and The President.....

              1. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oh wow.
                Thanks.
                I had no idea.   Has Schumer contracted slip-of-the-tongue-disease from Obama?

              2. lady_love158 profile image61
                lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                LOL It's sad but this is the leftist ruling elite, our country's supposed best and brightest...how the he'll do these idiots stay inoffice???

                1. profile image60
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know. Like the guy who was concerned Guam would "capsize" and "tip over" because of over population.....
                  I understand the corruption, power does that, we can deal with that. Ignorance I can't accept....

  2. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    Score:
    FOR: 2
    AGAINST: 2

    Keep in mind the Feds argument was that the States didn't have legal standing to even bring the suit.....That was pretty weak...More to come on this to be sure.

  3. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    Bachmann's got guts,  and combined with her common sense, outshines any of Obama's cabinet members by miles.

  4. melpor profile image92
    melporposted 6 years ago

    Just another attempt to derail the health care passed by Congress. How long is this going to keep going? The judges have more urgent things to deal with besides this issue. Futhermore, what they are ruling unconstitional is not in effect yet. It will not become effective until I believe 2012 or 2013.

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh great another liberal that believes the constitution doesn't matter... I guess we should just eliminate the oath if office! What's next, eliminating those pesky elections??? LOL

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe not eliminating them,  just controlling them like happened when Obama got elected.   
        I watched a movie about Hitler last night.   That's how he got into power.  Backed by people who early on outright heard him spouting his hatred for the Jews and how Germany should rid itself of them.   And they still gave credence to the carp that came outta his mouth!   Unconscienable!

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Your post was very confusing.  Is it all the fault of Jews, Germans or Carp?

    2. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The law is effective now, at least portions of it. The law if left un-challenged will create huge problems. Last week the list of authorized waivers increased from 222 to over 700!

      1. melpor profile image92
        melporposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The judges , all four judges so far, are only calling the part of health care that require all citizens to carry health insurance unconstitutional. This is not in effect yet.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Right, but if that's stripped from the law, what will sustain it? It's the premiums that the young and/or healthy will pay that will provide health care for the now uninsured.

          1. lady_love158 profile image61
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually this judge declared the whole law unconstitutional mainly because the justice department in defense of the law argued the mandate was unseverable from the law and since the 2700 page bill has no severablity clause the judge agreed with the incompetent Obama justice department and struck the whole down. This wont stop the Obama administration as they are prepared to ignore the judges ruling because they are ideologue thugs intent on the destruction of America!

        2. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So would the waivers not be valid? BTW, the Judge stated that the requirement to purchase insurance was not constitutional and also not severable from the rest of law. Therefore the entire law must be declared void.
          Basically what he is saying is that the law can not work(i.e. is overly vauge and not enforcable) unless EVERYONE has insurance. Further the requirement to purchase insurance is NOT constitutional.

  5. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    The government shouldn't be involved in providing health care for anyone. It's completely ridiculous. hmm

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not so.
      We should provide care for the elderly, the helpless young, and anyone who's physically (or mentally) disabled.  Heck, we even provide basic health care to people in our prison/jail system, as we should.  It's basic human compassion.
      Beyond that, I agree with you.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        On what Constitutional Basis should we provide care for the elderly or disabled?

        Answer : (as provided by USSC rulings) General Welfare Clause.

        If you accept the legality and morality of providing for one group using the General Welfare Clause, you can't deny the General Welfare Clause.. just cause it's not convenient.

        1. lady_love158 profile image61
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So, according to your interpretation of the general welfare clause the government has unlimited power to do anything as long as they can say its for your own good?
          You see that's where reading the constitution isn't enough you actually have to study what the intent was and clearly your interpretation was not the intent!

  6. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    The bill IS unconstitutional. I'm surprised so many people are FOR the bill.

    It doesn't really do much except give government greater control over the insurance market and then force you to buy insurance.

    It adds demand... but no supply.

  7. BillyDRitchie profile image61
    BillyDRitchieposted 6 years ago

    Wow, a Federal judge actually looking to the Constitution as the standard bearer.....who'da thunk it....

  8. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    This is definitely headed towards the supreme court. We know how the supreme court ruled on SSA. The only constitutional issue I see is using the commerce clause to force people to purchase a product from a private business. This is DEFINITELY unconstitutional.
    However, as I understand the SC rulings, a government run insurance plan WOULD be Constitutional. This is a stroke of genius on the left. If they planned this all along, it's a clear, backdoor path to a single payer system....

  9. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    Lady love? Love gets seriously perverted in the land of the 'free'. Why don't you go vigilante and start staking the sick personally. I'm sure it would scratch an itch...

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Bring out her dead!" LOL
      You libs and you scare tactics! Why don't you have Obama pass a law making it illegal to die? Oh wait, can't do that because they need the death tax revenue!

  10. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    According to a survey released Wednesday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 46.3 million Americans, or about 15.4%, did not have health insurance coverage in 2009, representing a slight increase from 2008. Nearly 60 million, or one in five, had gaps in insurance coverage over the course of the year, according to the survey data.

    http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/cdc-numb … -increases

    You are passionate about denying health care to tens of millions of Americans?

    Why? Which freedom are you preserving?

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And 30% of those made more than 50k a year and could afford to buy insurance and chose not to! I'd be protecting those people!

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, the original ragged trousered philanthropist!

  11. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    Well we certainly don't want to be protecting people do we...

    Not even that seventy per cent who you seem to think might deserve it.

    1. lady_love158 profile image61
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Its not about what you "deserve". No one "deserves" anything! We have an obligation to provide for our own needs.

 
working