This just in: According to a Reuters report, a federal judge in Pensacola, Fla., has ruled that 20 U.S. states can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare reform law.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he would reject parts of a motion by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit, led by Florida and 19 other states.
( see link for 65 page opinion)
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/10/14/florida-judge-refuses-to-block-suit-against-health-care-law/
Originally posted by utherpendragonCharge!! ðŸ˜
This just in: According to a Reuters report, [b]a federal judge in Pensacola, Fla., has ruled that 20 U.S. states can proceed with their lawsuit seeking to overturn President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare reform law.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson had already indicated at a hearing last month that he would reject parts of a motion by the ...[text shortened]... http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/10/14/florida-judge-refuses-to-block-suit-against-health-care-law/[/b]
Basically, the judge rejected the argument that the individual mandate could be viewed as a tax because the people that wrote the law decided to call it a "penalty" rather than a "tax".
Fine -- we can pass a new law to change the wording in the existing law to replace the word "penalty" with the word "tax" and then this judge would have no problem with it.
Or else we can some other way of paying this part of the cost -- or we can add to the deficit.
Or perhaps you can offer us a totally new plan that will allow everyone to get access to the health insurance that they need - that is more effective and-or efficient than the one Obama produced.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe issue at hand and that the 21 states are opposing and have filed the lawsuit about is the Feds abusing the commerce clause once again mandating that citizens purchase a product. Its unprecedented.
Basically, the judge rejected the argument that the individual mandate could be viewed as a tax because the people that wrote the law decided to call it a "penalty" rather than a "tax".
Fine -- we can pass a new law to change the wording in the existing law to replace the word "penalty" with the word "tax" and then this judge would have no problem wit ...[text shortened]... ce that they need - that is more effective and-or efficient than the one Obama produced.
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou do realize that nothing was actually decided on the merits, don't you?
The issue at hand and that the 21 states are opposing and have filed the lawsuit about is the Feds abusing the commerce clause once again [b] mandating that citizens purchase a product. Its unprecedented.[/b]
Originally posted by utherpendragonAnd the judge would have tossed out the suits if the law had been worded so that the word "tax" was used instead of the word "penalty".
The issue at hand and that the 21 states are opposing and have filed the lawsuit about is the Feds abusing the commerce clause once again [b] mandating that citizens purchase a product. Its unprecedented.[/b]
Because right now, if you don't have any kids, you have to pay a penalty -- if you don't have a mortgage, you have to pay a penalty. Whether you call it a tax or a penalty, you still have to pay it and it costs you just as much. But I hear nothing about this from the Tea Party -- Why isn't the Tea Party upset about this? -- there is a mandate for people to buy a house - and there's a mandate to have kids - do these things or else you'll have to pay more!! Where's the outrage??
The government does not have the right to force people to buy something. Everyone knows this to be true. The only question is whether or not people are going to overlook this fact because it is for the 'greater good'.
Anyone who believes that what the Constitution says should be overlooked because it is for the greater good according to their own point of view doesn't deserve to be an American. They can rot for all I care. They are a plague.
Originally posted by Melanerpesthere is a mandate for people to buy a house - and there's a mandate to have kids?
And the judge would have tossed out the suits if the law had been worded so that the word "tax" was used instead of the word "penalty".
Because right now, if you don't have any kids, you have to pay a penalty -- if you don't have a mortgage, you have to pay a penalty. Whether you call it a tax or a penalty, you still have to pay it and it costs you jus ...[text shortened]... to have kids - do these things or else you'll have to pay more!! Where's the outrage??
what the hell are you talking about?
Originally posted by MelanerpesI believe that Obama insisted that it was not a tax in order to sell it to the American people. Now that it is in the courts it must be a tax in order for the courts to allow the law to stand. Its just that simple. Once again we have dishonest manipulating politicians making us all look like fools. Oh yea, did I mention they used Reconciliation to pass the darn thing because Scott Brown was elected? The people of MA tried to stop Obamacare by voting for him. Much to their chagrin they bypassed the Constitutional way to pass laws.
Basically, the judge rejected the argument that the individual mandate could be viewed as a tax because the people that wrote the law decided to call it a "penalty" rather than a "tax".
Fine -- we can pass a new law to change the wording in the existing law to replace the word "penalty" with the word "tax" and then this judge would have no problem wit ...[text shortened]... ce that they need - that is more effective and-or efficient than the one Obama produced.
Originally posted by utherpendragonNot really, since 1776 the federal government mandates that people purchase army protection.
The issue at hand and that the 21 states are opposing and have filed the lawsuit about is the Feds abusing the commerce clause once again [b] mandating that citizens purchase a product. Its unprecedented.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeywhodey: Much to their chagrin they bypassed the Constitutional way to pass laws.
I believe that Obama insisted that it was not a tax in order to sell it to the American people. Now that it is in the courts it must be a tax in order for the courts to allow the law to stand. Its just that simple. Once again we have dishonest manipulating politicians making us all look like fools. Oh yea, did I mention they used Reconciliation to pass th ...[text shortened]... are by voting for him. Much to their chagrin they bypassed the Constitutional way to pass laws.
Another lie that you constantly repeat even though it's falsehood has been pointed out to you several times. The Constitution rather clearly states that Congress has the power to make its own rules:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings
US Constitution, Article I, Section 5
There is nothing in the Constitution saying that the Senate gets a filibuster power over legislation nor barring reconciliation which has been used many times in the past.