Florida judge- Obamacare unconstitutional!

1. 59

   lady_love158posted 13 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!!!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Carp

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Horse doody! 

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Sarah Palin

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Joe Bad'un.
                  
                  Er...Joe Biden.

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I love her too! And Michelle Bachmann

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm sure you do.

                     replyreport
      2. 59

         lady_love158posted 13 years agoin 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!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
         2. 58

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin 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

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Say again?
               Who/what removed the Judiciary?

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                  2. 59

                     lady_love158posted 13 years agoin 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???

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin 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....

                        replyreport
2. 58

   C.J. Wrightposted 13 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.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

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

   replyreport
4. 90

   melporposted 13 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.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin 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

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin 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!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
   2. 58

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin 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!

      replyreport
      1. 90

         melporposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            habeeposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               lady_love158posted 13 years agoin 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!

               replyreport
         2. 58

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
5. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            lady_love158posted 13 years agoin 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!

            replyreport
6. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 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.

   replyreport
7. 60

   BillyDRitchieposted 13 years ago

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

   replyreport
8. 58

   C.J. Wrightposted 13 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....

   replyreport
9. 89

   Will Apseposted 13 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...

   replyreport
   1. 59

      lady_love158posted 13 years agoin 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!

      replyreport
10. 89

    Will Apseposted 13 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?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       lady_love158posted 13 years agoin 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!

       replyreport
       1. 60

          John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Ah, the original ragged trousered philanthropist!

          replyreport
11. 89

    Will Apseposted 13 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.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       lady_love158posted 13 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport