Judge gives first victory to stopping FORCED healthcare

The Virigina lawsuit against the Fedeal government that says it does not want the government to FORCE people to have certain healthcare is going to go through to the courts. The judge said today that they will not just throw it out like Obama wanted. Now the other 22 states who have filed similar lawsits against the government can go forward. This is a huge victory for the majority of Americans who want this thrown out and done right. So now the
heathcare cannot take effect until this is settled. :woo hoo: :woo hoo:

Like the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot FORCE Americans into purchasing anything. But as we know the COnstitution means nothing to this administration.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... -continue/

The state of Virginia can continue its lawsuit to stop the nation's new health care law from taking effect, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said he is allowing the suit against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it's constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product.

"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision.

Colorado related:

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=9447

"The Health Care Choice for Colorado initiative asks voters to exempt Colorado from recent federal health care reform, including a provision requiring citizens and business owners to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Caldara says the initiative would also prevent the government from forcing people into a public or private health care plan against their will."

The only problem with this battle by the states is its going to drag out and nothing positive will get done in the meantime. I wonder how Colorado will vote?

Joe wrote: Colorado related:

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=9447

"The Health Care Choice for Colorado initiative asks voters to exempt Colorado from recent federal health care reform, including a provision requiring citizens and business owners to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Caldara says the initiative would also prevent the government from forcing people into a public or private health care plan against their will."

The only problem with this battle by the states is its going to drag out and nothing positive will get done in the meantime. I wonder how Colorado will vote?

I cannot wait to vote on this! I think it will pass by 60%. Colorado does not want to be forced to violate the Constitution where it says that you cannot be forced by the Federal Government to pay for goods or services. I think it will be an epensive add campain both for and against it.

The Viking wrote: The Virigina lawsuit against the Fedeal government that says it does not want the government to FORCE people to have certain healthcare is going to go through to the courts. The judge said today that they will not just throw it out like Obama wanted. Now the other 22 states who have filed similar lawsits against the government can go forward. This is a huge victory for the majority of Americans who want this thrown out and done right. So now the
heathcare cannot take effect until this is settled. :woo hoo: :woo hoo:

Like the Constitution says, the Federal government cannot FORCE Americans into purchasing anything. But as we know the COnstitution means nothing to this administration.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08 ... -continue/

The state of Virginia can continue its lawsuit to stop the nation's new health care law from taking effect, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said he is allowing the suit against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it's constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product.

"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision.

Actually from almost the very beginning of this country, Congress required it's citizens to purchase certain items. The 2nd Congress in the Military Conscription Act of 1792 required "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.


So clearly the original founding fathers did intend that Congress have the power to order citizens to purchase items.
Further, the health care reform legislation does not require anyone to purchase insurance. If you are willing to forego the tax credit, then you can choose not to purchase insurance. You will be paying a higher tax though. Essentially, the legislation imposes a tax on everyone, and you receive an offsetting tax credit if you choose to purchase qualifying insurance or have it provided to you. You are not forced to purchase insurance however, nor will the government kill granny.

The Viking wrote:

Joe wrote: Colorado related:

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=9447

"The Health Care Choice for Colorado initiative asks voters to exempt Colorado from recent federal health care reform, including a provision requiring citizens and business owners to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Caldara says the initiative would also prevent the government from forcing people into a public or private health care plan against their will."

The only problem with this battle by the states is its going to drag out and nothing positive will get done in the meantime. I wonder how Colorado will vote?

I cannot wait to vote on this! I think it will pass by 60%. Colorado does not want to be forced to violate the Constitution where it says that you cannot be forced by the Federal Government to pay for goods or services. I think it will be an epensive add campain both for and against it.

Perhaps you could share with us where in the Constitution does it say "that you cannot be forced by the Federal Government to pay for goods or services"? I have read the Constitution many times and can not recollect that particular provision.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Joe wrote: Colorado related:

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=9447

"The Health Care Choice for Colorado initiative asks voters to exempt Colorado from recent federal health care reform, including a provision requiring citizens and business owners to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Caldara says the initiative would also prevent the government from forcing people into a public or private health care plan against their will."

The only problem with this battle by the states is its going to drag out and nothing positive will get done in the meantime. I wonder how Colorado will vote?

I cannot wait to vote on this! I think it will pass by 60%. Colorado does not want to be forced to violate the Constitution where it says that you cannot be forced by the Federal Government to pay for goods or services. I think it will be an epensive add campain both for and against it.

Perhaps you could share with us where in the Constitution does it say "that you cannot be forced by the Federal Government to pay for goods or services"? I have read the Constitution many times and can not recollect that particular provision.

The Commerce Clause in the Constitution. You can read it like you want but no where does it give permission to FORCE people o purchase goods or services. They are over stepping their rights as defined byt the US Constitution. It is a total power grab.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constituti ... tution.htm

And you will love this explanation of how........ The Progressives sought to use the clause in another novel way. In the effort to evolve a national police power, the clause was made the basis for legislation prohibiting lottery tickets, impure food and drugs, adulterated meat, transportation of women across state lines for immoral purposes, and, ultimately, child labor. The Court generally sustained such use, holding that Congress could validly close the channels of interstate commerce to items that were dangerous or otherwise objectionable. The Court made an exception with regard to child labor and returned to limiting federal power. In this case, the Court drew a much-criticized distinction between prohibiting the use of the facilities of interstate commerce to harmful goods, on the one hand, and using the commerce clause to get at the conditions under which goods entering that commerce were produced, on the other (Hammer v. Dagenhart [1918]).

http://www.answers.com/topic/commerce-clause

I find that most of the people railing against the bill and calling it unconstitutional are Republicans. I also find that the most pro-corporate Surpreme Court in decades (e.g., the Roberts court) was constructed by Republicans.
Do you really think the Roberts court is going to deny private health insurance corporations a free lunch at the taxpayers expense?!? Hell no, that's laughable.
There is no way the Roberts court strikes this law down as Unconstitutional if for no other reason than it's pro-corporate.

Have fun reaping what you've sown Republicans...

The Viking wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Joe wrote: Colorado related:

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=9447

"The Health Care Choice for Colorado initiative asks voters to exempt Colorado from recent federal health care reform, including a provision requiring citizens and business owners to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Caldara says the initiative would also prevent the government from forcing people into a public or private health care plan against their will."

The only problem with this battle by the states is its going to drag out and nothing positive will get done in the meantime. I wonder how Colorado will vote?

I cannot wait to vote on this! I think it will pass by 60%. Colorado does not want to be forced to violate the Constitution where it says that you cannot be forced by the Federal Government to pay for goods or services. I think it will be an epensive add campain both for and against it.

Perhaps you could share with us where in the Constitution does it say "that you cannot be forced by the Federal Government to pay for goods or services"? I have read the Constitution many times and can not recollect that particular provision.

The Commerce Clause in the Constitution. You can read it like you want but no where does it give permission to FORCE people o purchase goods or services. They are over stepping their rights as defined byt the US Constitution. It is a total power grab.

http://www.senate.gov/civics/constituti ... tution.htm

No where does it prohibit the Federal government from offering a tax break to those who choose to purchase insurance. Further, it does grant the Federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Certainly the Federal government has the power to regulate items that are in commerce, vis a vis automobiles, food, drugs, etc. The only question is whether or not the Federal government has the power to regulate economic inactivity. As I earlier pointed out, clearly the Founding Fathers considered that the federal government had the power to require its citizens to provide specific items, such as in the Military Conscription Act of 1792 where all able bodied white men between the ages of 18 and 45 were required to provide specific items for service in the military. Thus, clearly the federal government can provide a tax break for those who choose to purchase qualified insurance. The government can already impose taxes on its citizens, so all they are currently doing is providing a tax break.

Whatevergreen wrote: I find that most of the people railing against the bill and calling it unconstitutional are Republicans. I also find that the most pro-corporate Surpreme Court in decades (e.g., the Roberts court) was constructed by Republicans.
Do you really think the Roberts court is going to deny private health insurance corporations a free lunch at the taxpayers expense?!? Hell no, that's laughable.
There is no way the Roberts court strikes this law down as Unconstitutional if for no other reason than it's pro-corporate.

Have fun reaping what you've sown Republicans...

What bill have you been reading? This bill is 100% opposite of pro corporations. Businesses will go bankrupt left and right having to pay for this insurance. And hospitals will close and Doctors will retire early. And Less are already looking into the proffession when they are told they have to work harder for much less money and then will have to wait to get paid by an almost bankrupt government. This bill is 100% social welfare. Nothing to help businesses at all.