Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Are you trying to figure out if this is constitional or not, or has your focus of argument moved towards simply trying to "win" in a discussion over me? Just curious...
Who decides if something is constitutional or not?
Was there ever much doubt that your HealthCare reform would be brought to the Supreme Court at some point?
IP: Logged
06:51 PM
Dec 15th, 2010
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli tells Newsmax that the defeat of Obamacare and its individual mandate is “critical to the preservation of the Constitution and liberty.”
Cuccinelli successfully argued the case that led to a federal judge’s ruling on Monday that the individual mandate — requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or pay a penalty — is unconstitutional.
The Republican attorney general says other parts of the healthcare reform bill regarding Medicaid and Medicare also may be found unconstitutional, asserts that the “incredible uncertainty” about the bill’s ultimate legal status is affecting the entire U.S economy, and rules out a run for the U.S. Senate in 2012.
Even as Cuccinelli’s victory is hailed as a pivotal point in the fight against Obamacare, he cites another potentially decisive case: the Florida-based suit of 20 states in which arguments will be heard beginning Thursday.
Cuccinelli was elected to his current post in November 2009 after serving as a Republican state senator in Virginia.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Tuesday, he says the key from the ruling in Virginia Monday “is the constitutional findings. There were two: the individual mandate, and the federal government’s fallback argument that the penalty for not buying their health insurance was a tax.
“That’s what they argued, because Congress has the power to tax. They tried to save the statute that way. And this judge, as three other judges before him, rejected that argument as well.”
President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress did a “flip-flop” on the tax issue, Cuccinelli says.
“There’s no question that the proponents of the bill argued while the bill was in Congress, ‘This is not a tax, this is not a tax.’ They were emphatic. And then we sued them on the individual mandate and they dumped on us for how unlikely [our case] was to succeed, until they started reading our arguments and a few weeks in they started to realize, ‘Oh my gosh, they might win this case.’ So they started looking for a fallback argument, and the fallback was to argue that the penalty is a tax.
“The judge noted, as other judges have noted, that it’s fruitless, that no judge in the country has ruled in the government’s favor on that. In fact they’re oh-for-four, including with Clinton appointees, Bush appointees. The federal government has lost every single court case on the tax argument. So that’s going nowhere.
“This whole case is going to come down to the individual mandate and whether or not Congress has the power to order us to all buy a product. Realize this isn’t just about health insurance and healthcare, it’s about liberty. Because if they can order us to buy health insurance, they can order us to buy cars, they can order us to buy books, they can order us to buy guns or asparagus.
“There’s no limit as to how this power could be exercised, and it’s critical to the preservation of the Constitution and liberty that we prevail in this case.” Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, has said that the individual mandate is not an essential part of the healthcare reform law and was added only to persuade the health insurance companies to sign on.
Cuccinelli takes issue with that. “Let’s look at the federal government’s own argument, in which they called it the linchpin of the legislation,” he tells Newsmax.
“That was their word, the linchpin. So obviously they think it’s critical. And in their own briefs, they admitted that the insurance provisions of the bill cannot survive without the individual mandate because the insurance industry would collapse. This is their financing mechanism.”
Another critical point looms Thursday, when the 20-state challenge that Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is leading goes to a hearing in Pensacola. Those states argue that the law’s expansion of Medicaid to 16 million more Americans places an unfair burden on cash-strapped states.
“That Florida case is going to be just as important as this Virginia case,” Cuccinelli says.
“In addition to the individual mandate, which they are attacking, they’re also addressing the Medicaid Medicare mandates under a case in which the Supreme Court said even voluntary programs for the states at some point could have so many burdens for the states that they become coercive.
“If the Supreme Court finds that the mandates on the states under Medicaid and Medicare reach that threshold and are coercive, then they may find those parts of the bill unconstitutional, which obviously are the pieces that cost state governments the most money.
“In Virginia, the cost for the next 10 fiscal years would be a billion and a half dollars. That’s assuming their cost estimates are right, and they never get those right — they always cost more than they originally estimate.” Other challenges to Obamacare from the states are sure to follow, Cuccinelli adds.
“By the end of January, because of who got elected governor and attorney general around the country in November, over half of the states will be suing as plaintiffs their own federal government because of the federal government’s violation of the Constitution ordering Americans to buy these products.”
Looking ahead at the progress of his case, Cuccinelli says: “A number of weeks ago we began talking to the Department of Justice about their willingness to expedite the case because of the incredible uncertainty that not knowing the outcome has for our whole economy. And we are interested in expediting the case.
“The Department of Justice hasn’t told us whether they’re willing to agree to that or not yet, but there are cordial discussions still ongoing.
“They have 30 days, now 29, to appeal, and that appeal has to be lodged first before any motion to expedite could be filed anyway, so we have a little bit of time here.”
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post wrote on Monday that the state attorney general’s high-profile victory over Obamacare makes him a shoo-in for the GOP nomination for governor in 2013 or the U.S. Senate in 2012 if he chooses to run.
But Cuccinelli told Newsmax: “I have rejected the notion of running for the U.S. Senate in 2012, and 2013’s far enough off that I don’t really feel that I have to make a decision on that now.”
“For now, I’m just going to be the best attorney general I can be,” he says, adding that he most likely will seek re-election as attorney general in 2013.
IP: Logged
04:15 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22896 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Word is leaking out today, that the 11th Court of Appeals in Atlanta has ruled the individual mandate portion of Obamacare as unconstitutional--the complete ruling is lengthy and and has not yet been released to the public AFIK
IP: Logged
02:03 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22896 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Word is leaking out today, that the 11th Court of Appeals in Atlanta has ruled the individual mandate portion of Obamacare as unconstitutional--the complete ruling is lengthy and and has not yet been released to the public AFIK
Yup... it was just announced. The administration appealed it after that ruling, but to the surprised of the administration, the appeals court actually upheld a major part of the previous court's ruling. The individual mandate (essentially, the part where the bill gets it's funding from) was ruled vehemently unconstitutional. The exact language went as far as to say that the bill was over-reaching, etc... saying that congress CANNOT force citizens to pay for a service for the rest of their life.
They struck down the individual mandate.
As an American, I am proud that they've upheld my right to be a free-living street vagabond if I want to!!! But seriously... that mandate was unbelievably unconstitutional, I don't know HOW they imagined it would ever be considered... just glad it was overturned.
This means it will definitely go to the Supreme Court next, where it will undoubtedly be supported (in striking down the mandate), if not completely tossed out.
The journey to the SCOTUS begins with a single step. It ain't over yet.
Right. Long way to go still, and that is IF they agree to hear it. Remember they can always ignore it and let the last ruling stand on its own. ( the one flaw our founders left with us )
IP: Logged
05:44 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Yup... it was just announced. The administration appealed it after that ruling, .
That is good news. I have a feeling it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court......and the lower courts will be upheld again, only this time, the announcement will be well timed
IP: Logged
05:49 PM
partfiero Member
Posts: 6923 From: Tucson, Arizona Registered: Jan 2002
Originally posted by Toddster: That is good news. I have a feeling it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court......and the lower courts will be upheld again, only this time, the announcement will be well timed
After the hit Obama put on them, sure the decision is scheduled for around, say October 2012, right after the mid year recess. Class will be back in session and the Harvard genius will be reedumacated on Constitutional Law.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... saying that congress CANNOT force citizens to pay for a service for the rest of their life.
I'm actually kind of hoping this sets a precedent, because down here we have mandatory liability insurance on vehicles. With this precedent, we can kiss that good bye and I can put an extra $300 in my pocket every six months.
I'm actually kind of hoping this sets a precedent, because down here we have mandatory liability insurance on vehicles. With this precedent, we can kiss that good bye and I can put an extra $300 in my pocket every six months.
That's not quite the same thing - you don't have to have a car
I'm actually kind of hoping this sets a precedent, because down here we have mandatory liability insurance on vehicles. With this precedent, we can kiss that good bye and I can put an extra $300 in my pocket every six months.
I know you think you're being sneaky / smart here... but I'm sure you realize this is COMPLETELY different.
There is nothing that SAYS you have to own a car. You can take a bike, you can use public transportation, or you can get a job closer to home. You can also even RENT a car whenever you need one, or you can call a cab. None of which would require you to carry any kind of personal car insurance.
This law however, states that simply for the fact of being alive... you are REQUIRED to purchase a product.
I'm hoping that we don't have to go through this one again, and that you won't bother using this analogy anymore in defense of you wanting a nationalized health care program. Just because YOU think everyone else's rights should be taken away so that the poor can have health care... doesn't mean that it's constitutionally right.
IP: Logged
07:31 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35994 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by JazzMan: I'm actually kind of hoping this sets a precedent, because down here we have mandatory liability insurance on vehicles. With this precedent, we can kiss that good bye and I can put an extra $300 in my pocket every six months.
You lie, we do not have mandatory liability insurance required on vehicles. We can either set aside from our pockets the amount of financial responsibility required by law, or, we can have a bonding company post it for us.
IP: Logged
09:02 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I'm actually kind of hoping this sets a precedent, because down here we have mandatory liability insurance on vehicles. With this precedent, we can kiss that good bye and I can put an extra $300 in my pocket every six months.
And yet another difference from those already pointed out, that is not a Federal law, it is State law.
Okay so we have the Commerce Clause.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”
Now this grants Congress the power to regulate commerce. But what is commerce?
Commerce: an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce); trade; business.
Goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise.
Commodities: an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service.
So the question arises, is Health Insurance a good, a commodity or is it a service? If it is a service, then the commerce clause does not give Congress the power to regulate it.
Vehicle insurance is not required by any act of Congress. It is required by individual States whos State Constitutions may allow for it's enforcement. Also, each State has defined what must be purchased to operate a vehicle on their roads. Those requirements are not nation wide, so a person who lives in Alabama will not be required to have the same coverage as someone who lives in New York. The requirements enforced by the State may be the same between those two States but it is still a State law, not a act of Congress. And last I checked, the Commerce Clause says nothing about what the State can do, only what Congress can do.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 08-12-2011).]
Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly. They think that they can pass Obamacare under the interstate commerce laws. From everything I'm seeing, the commerce laws only allow Congress to regulate what has already been traded or commerce between states. Not to mandate what is purchased or traded.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '88 Ferrario
IP: Logged
08:20 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly. They think that they can pass Obamacare under the interstate commerce laws. From everything I'm seeing, the commerce laws only allow Congress to regulate what has already been traded or commerce between states. Not to mandate what is purchased or traded.
Government uses the "commerce clause" for anything they want to try to regulate, even if they are overstepping their authority. Yet another reason to reign in government.
You lie, we do not have mandatory liability insurance required on vehicles. We can either set aside from our pockets the amount of financial responsibility required by law, or, we can have a bonding company post it for us.
i wouldn't call it a 'lie' but misuse of the term 'insurance'.
Regardless of terms the state requires you to be able to pony up X dollars in the event of an accident. How you do that is up to you, but you cant get out of it, which while i may be wrong, was the intent of the original comment.
IP: Logged
01:19 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly. They think that they can pass Obamacare under the interstate commerce laws. From everything I'm seeing, the commerce laws only allow Congress to regulate what has already been traded or commerce between states. Not to mandate what is purchased or traded.
You see very clearly. The Obamacare freaks are trying to force socialism on America by misinterpreting the Constitution deliberately. It is obvious to a 5 year old what was meant by the Commerce Clause.
Obamacare is nothing more than an attempted coup d'etat. He and his cronies are guilty of an attempt at usurping Constitutional authority through precident.
To my mind, this is a high crime but since IObama is such a disaster I don't think we need to impeach him, the Democrats won't even nominate him in 2012. For the first time since Chester A Arthur an incumbant will fail to get his own party's nomination.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 08-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:21 PM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 35994 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
I think he knows the financial liability laws of Texas. I think it was a lie.
quote
Originally posted by User00013170: Regardless of terms the state requires you to be able to pony up X dollars in the event of an accident. How you do that is up to you, but you cant get out of it, which while i may be wrong, was the intent of the original comment.
The intent of any comment jazzman makes is a calculated juxtaposition of words. He knew what he was saying and why he said what he did.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-13-2011).]
