Obamacare Unconstitutional

[dapoes]

If you are going to quote it, at least post the whole quote, or will that not prove your point?

It has not been ruled unconstitutional. Two judges have rules against it and two have ruled for it. That would be 50% and the only ruling that counts is the SCOTUS. For that we will have to wait.

Yes it has EXPLICITLY!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905280/vinsonruling1-31-11

Page 75 discussed the injunction how they must stop immediately!

It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction

 

[eolesen]

As for mandatory insurance. How do we explain ss and Medicare?

Neither one is a private company. They are separate agencies of the government, and income is collected by the IRS.

Had Obamacare taken over the insurance industry, you might have an argument. But that would have never gotten out of committee.

How fitting it would be to have this case decided in the run-up to the 2012 primaries...

 

[dapoes]

How fitting it would be to have this case decided in the run-up to the 2012 primaries...

And this will be the end of the liberal agenda once and for all. Yesterdays vote and failure to pass the repeal bill in the Senate was HUGE. It put crosshairs on the seats that the Dems hold and will ultimately lose in 2012. Perfect storm in 2012. Republican/Tea Party majority in both houses as well the president. YES WE CAN!

 

[dapoes]

Obamas re-election possibility in 2012 looks dimmer and dimmer....

A poll done by Quinnipiac shows that President Obama does not exactly start on favorable ground. This comes just three months after Republican Marco Rubio was elected to the Senate and a GOP governor was selected by the state.

[snip]

And if he is placed against an unnamed Republican opponent, he is losing:

Barack Obama: 40%
Generic Republican: 42%
Other/und: 18%

 

[Ms Tree]

Neither one is a private company. They are separate agencies of the government, and income is collected by the IRS.

Had Obamacare taken over the insurance industry, you might have an argument. But that would have never gotten out of committee.

How fitting it would be to have this case decided in the run-up to the 2012 primaries...

Granted but it is still a mandated insurance that we have to pay for. I do not know how Souter will view that or if it even has any bearing on the issue.

 

[delldude]

Granted but it is still a mandated insurance that we have to pay for. I do not know how Souter will view that or if it even has any bearing on the issue.

Its not mandated.....you don't have to use it.

 

[delldude]

If you are going to quote it, at least post the whole quote, or will that not prove your point?

It has not been ruled unconstitutional. Two judges have rules against it and two have ruled for it. That would be 50% and the only ruling that counts is the SCOTUS. For that we will have to wait.

It has been ruled Dude.....all you cite not based on the same brief.


Not if SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

Link

"I think that Kagan, who was the solicitor general at the time this was all done, probably should recuse herself, which means it might not be resolved by the Supreme Court," Hatch, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tells Fox News. "That means the lower court decision will be the acting law."

 

[Ms Tree]

Its not mandated.....you don't have to use it.

I don't care if you use it. Let me know when you find a way to opt out of it. As far as I am aware there is no such option yet

 

[delldude]

I don't care if you use it. Let me know when you find a way to opt out of it. As far as I am aware there is no such option yet

Maybe pay the bill yourself ?

 

[Ms Tree]

Maybe pay the bill yourself ?

How about we stick with the current reality and what you want it to be for the time being.

US law is based on precedent. SS and Medicare are forms of retirement insurance that are mandated. I do not know the legality of private verses public as Eolesen pointed out but I do not think it will affect it. I think if it gets to SCOTUS it will pass.

I do not see how Kagen can recuse her self on such an important issue. Scalia has not done so on several occasions where there has been an obvious conflict of interest so I do not see why Kagen should not follow suit.

 

[delldude]

How about we stick with the current reality and what you want it to be for the time being.

US law is based on precedent. SS and Medicare are forms of retirement insurance that are mandated. I do not know the legality of private verses public as Eolesen pointed out but I do not think it will affect it. I think if it gets to SCOTUS it will pass.

I do not see how Kagen can recuse her self on such an important issue. Scalia has not done so on several occasions where there has been an obvious conflict of interest so I do not see why Kagen should not follow suit.

The only way medicare is mandated is by accepting SS and there is not any law requiring you to file for SS.
And the mandate for forced acceptance of medicare is illegal and violation of existing law.

As for Kagan, how can someone who was paid to promote, support and wave the flag for Obamacare have an objective opinion?

If it were to be proven Congress has the power to dictate to its citizens in this regard, it is a dangerous and slippery slope for the country.

 

[Ms Tree]

Pay attn. Dell, I don't care if you apply for it, you do have to pay for it with your pay roll taxes. Every pay check has a SS tax on it. I do not have an option for not paying for it.

May be she should ask Scallia and his wife. They have been doing it since he was on the bench.

Perhaps but SS and Medicare have already opened that door and no one has been complaining till now.

 

[eolesen]

Pay attn. Dell, I don't care if you apply for it, you do have to pay for it with your pay roll taxes. Every pay check has a SS tax on it. I do not have an option for not paying for it.

Perhaps but SS and Medicare have already opened that door and no one has been complaining till now.

Wrong. On several counts.

There are a number of groups of workers who are exempted from having to pay Social Security taxes:

• Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
• State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
• Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
• Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
• Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
• Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
• Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
• College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
• Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.

My understanding is all of those groups would apparently be in violation of Obamacare if they don't purchase insurance.


Nobody complaining? I guess you don't recall all the discussion of replacing Social Security about six years ago. I do. And I'm still all for it. The current problems with Social Security are exactly the same as they are with pension plans: they're essentially pyramid schemes which require more people paying into the plans than those withdrawing from them.

 

[Ms Tree]

Wrong. On several counts.

There are a number of groups of workers who are exempted from having to pay Social Security taxes:

• Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
• State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
• Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
• Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
• Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
• Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
• Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
• College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
• Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.

My understanding is all of those groups would apparently be in violation of Obamacare if they don't purchase insurance.


Nobody complaining? I guess you don't recall all the discussion of replacing Social Security about six years ago. I do. And I'm still all for it. The current problems with Social Security are exactly the same as they are with pension plans: they're essentially pyramid schemes which require more people paying into the plans than those withdrawing from them.

Not really wrong. Those are exceptions. You and I, unless we are part of one of those specific groups cannot opt out.

Yes there was a discussion. I do not recall an law suits filed on behalf of half the nation to over turn it do you? I might have missed them I don't know.

 

[eolesen]

The same lobbyists who killed the public option in 2010 also killed privatization in 2004.