jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (25 posts)

ObamaCare Ruled Constitutional by 6th Circuit Court

  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    Sixth Circuit upholds ObamaCare mandate
    POSTED AT 1:15 PM ON JUNE 29, 2011
    BY ED MORRISSEY 

    "The decision got overlooked in all of the attention to Barack Obama’s press conference, but nonetheless this will make some big news. The Sixth Circuit has denied an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center and a group of individuals whose challenge to the ObamaCare mandate lost at the district-court level. In a split decision, the panel upheld the individual mandate as falling within the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, and ruled that the Constitution does not forbid regulation of “inactivity”.

    The conclusion sums up the decision, in which the panel accepted the government position entirely:

    Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including, in the aggregate, those without health insurance. Even dramatic attempts to protect one’s health and minimize the need for health care will not always be successful, and the health care market is characterized by unpredictable and unavoidable needs for care. The ubiquity and unpredictability of the need for medical care is born out by the statistics. More than eighty percent of adults nationwide visited a doctor or other health care professional one or more times in 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2009, table 35 (2010). Additionally, individuals receive health care services regardless of whether they can afford the treatment. The obligation to provide treatment regardless of ability to pay is imposed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, state laws, and many institutions’ charitable missions. The unavoidable need for health care coupled with the obligation to provide treatment make it virtually certain that all individuals will require and receive health care at some point. Thus, although there is no firm, constitutional bar that prohibits Congress from placing regulations on what could be described as inactivity, even if there were it would not impact this case due to the unique aspects of health care that make all individuals active in this market. In light of the conclusion that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, it is not necessary to resolve whether the provision could also be sustained as a proper exercise of Congress’s power to tax and spend under the General Welfare Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1...."

    It may be a chilly day in Hell before I exempt a post from Hair again but here is the link...

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/29/s … e-mandate/

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Glad you asked....

      The 6th Circuit is the highest court (so far) to rule on the legality of ObamaCare.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That's good news.

    3. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Totally unreadable, huh!

  2. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    it is not and will be struck

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What's most interesting is that one of the judges who upheld the law is not only a republican appointee, but a Scalia protege who was a clerk for Scalia.

      1. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        saw this , this afternoon.  Not sure at all a ruling saying the Goverment can force you to purchase anything is goodl.

  3. Robephiles profile image86
    Robephilesposted 6 years ago

    Even the most conservative of judges knows that ruling these policies unconstitutional would have horrible legal implications.  Suddenly anybody who didn't want to purchase car insurance would be able to sue the government.  Laws that compel people to buy flood insurance in areas that have heavy flooding would become unconstitutional.  In fact, the very principle of taxation could be questioned since taxation is essentially the government forcing you to pay into something without your explicit consent.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      looking at this as you state it, Was not thinking this way.. I guess it really could impact.

  4. donotfear profile image91
    donotfearposted 6 years ago

    Could it be.....?



    http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/fordonotfear/obama0001.jpg

    Oh, in all humanity!!!!

  5. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    ObamaCare isn't Constitutional, no matter what the mystical judges in black robes say.

    Forcing everyone to buy something is as unconstitutional as it gets.

    If the decree was "everyone must own a car by 2015", everyone would be mad at car company lobbyists.

    But because "healthcare = good" (supposedly), no one is mad at the huge medical lobbying groups at work.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Evan,
      I know you have very good reasons for believing as you do. But the reality remains. Those “mystical judges in black robes” are the ONLY people empowered to say what laws are or are not constitutional.  Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, another set of “mystical judges in black robes” will make the final decision. When they do, they will consider the constitution and legal precedent.  I doubt they will be asking for your opinion or mine.

      You may, or may not, be right about this. In 1935, The Social Security Act forced workers to contribute from their pay into a government administered old-age insurance system that would provide for their well-being in their later years. The Supreme Court upheld the law and Justice Cardozo wrote in the majority opinion, “The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near.” (Helvering vs. Davis, 1937 )The same may be said about the cost for medical care today.
      You are not alone. Americans often blame lobbyist for laws with which they disagree. The ability of individuals, groups, and corporations to lobby the government is protected by the right to petition in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The NAACP, for example, filed suits in state and federal courts in the 1950s to challenge segregation laws. Their lobbying efforts resulted in the Supreme Court declaring such laws unconstitutional. That decision still stands whether you and I agree with it or not.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "The only people empowered to say what laws are or are not constitutional".

        Screw that. I can read the damn document myself.

        All of this "oh shoot, those guys decided to take away my freedom again!" crap has got to go.

        Oh, and I KNOW I'm right about this one:

        *Article I section VIII gives the federal government only about 17 powers. No where in that list is "forcing people to buy things" listed by any stretch of the imagination. (Well, technically, it doesn't FORCE anyone to buy something, it simply makes it illegal to NOT own something... )

        *Then Amendment X gives all remaining powers to the states (or people, if the power was denied the states).

        *AND THEN, Amendment IX demands that it's unconstitutional to take away any right NOT protected in the Constitution - i.e., the freedom to pursue the ownership of property/happiness.

        Those mystical judges who swore to uphold this document are CLEARLY not doing their jobs. The document is VERY clear about this issue. Obama Care IS unconstitutional.

        A1 S8
        http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

        Am IX & X
        http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am9

        1. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Good Day, Evan.  Thanks for taking time to respond.
          Most Americans are grateful that they live in a country guided by the rule of law.  They recognize the only way to avoid anarchy is to respect judicial decisions based upon consideration of legal precedents.
          You are right, Evan. There is some truth in your statement. The words "forcing people to buy things" is not mentioned in the Constitution. That’s precisely the reason why it takes an extensive knowledge of legal precedent to arrive at a grounded constitutional opinion.
          Our personal opinions on this question have merits, for sure, but the only opinions that will prevail are those of the nine “mystical judges” appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the congress as required by the constitution. It is very likely that they will all agree that the words "forcing people to buy things" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, it is also very likely that their deliberations will focus on the commerce clause or on the broader powers to "provide for the general welfare." However, regardless of the direction of the proceedings, those “mystical judges” will CLEARLY be doing their jobs by interpreting the spirit of the Constitution in a world far more complex than the one in which it was written.
          Thanks again, Evan, for all of your interesting comments.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            My god... Someone being polite on the internet...

            ...It's been a while...

          2. DTR0005 profile image85
            DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Very well-said.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              It's well said, but wrong.

              I'm not a slave to my government. Just because 9 guys in robes think that I'm not allowed to do X doesn't mean that I can't.

              That's why the 2nd Amendment exists.

              1. Quilligrapher profile image91
                Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this



                Happy 4th of July, Evan.
                I read and acknowledge your preference for anarchy.
                Have a great weekend.

  6. tony0724 profile image60
    tony0724posted 6 years ago

    The Supreme Court will bounce it out once it get's there.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I dunno - those guys have been letting a lot of things fly, lately (lately = the last 200 years).

      I'd much rather just have my state refuse to enforce the law and declare the law Null. This process was outlined by Madison and Jefferson in 1798 - Nullification and Interposition.

  7. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

    Screw Obamacare. Let's just go with unibersal healthcare period. Oh yeah, that's another thing that people want but don't want to pay for.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, Paul. How are you doing?
      Like most other Americans, I would gladly exchange my health insurance benefits for the benefit plan members of the congress voted for themselves.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There's a reason people don't want to pay for it:

      It's too f-ing expensive.

  8. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    here's an interesting thought. If every American is required to carry health insurance, would the healthcare industry still be required to treat anyone who doesn't have insurance? I would assume that the hospitals would be required to report those who dont have coverage. Wouldn't this help achieve one of the GOP's objectives? I am referring to finding a way to identify illegal immigrants. If I am right, the new healthcare plan would aid the GOP in one of their major efforts, getting the illegal immigrants to stop using our healthcare system, and out of this country.

    Of course the bigger drain resulting from all those obese people would still exist. The fat Americans in this country cost our healthcare system a lot more than the illegal immigrant population does. This problem is only going to get bigger along with the majority of Americans.

    If I am correct in this, it would simply be another example of hypocrasy. The GOP fights to reduce the number of abortions in this country and also fights the easiest way to reduce them. Comprehensive sex education and making comdoms readily available, are the easiest and most effective ways to reduce abortions.

  9. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    Paul, universal healthcare wont fly, The GOP actually came out and announced they were unable to work out a plan to provide our citizens with universal healthcare. Dont you remember the ads that stated, Considering how bad a job our elected officials manage this country, do you really want them running your healthcare system?

    Other countries are capable of doing this but our government is unable to accomplish this. These are the same people who seek to take back control of our government, lol. This is just another reason I take exception with the American Exceptionalism beliefs so many hold onto.

 
working