Kansas caves on HCR, page 1

Here is the link>> www.kake.com...

and a little snip..

Friday, April 2, 2010

The following statement is by Attorney General Steve Six:

The attorney general’s office has completed its legal review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Based on that extensive analysis, I do not believe that Kansas can successfully challenge the law. Our review did not reveal any constitutional defects, and thus it would not be legally or fiscally responsible to pursue this litigation.

Does this mean that we are stuck with it here in Kansas or are the othere AG's that are filing from the other states be able to void the bill for all states ?
I would like a little input from someone that understands this process .

reply to post by Grayelf2009

---

Instead of waiting until the states move on this fiasco known as the "health care Bill", why not take matters into your own hands and refuse to comply, based on your right to informed consent. The doctrine of informed consent is a long held doctrine in American Jurisprudence, and to give just one example of The Supreme Courts view on this then check out Cruzan v. Director MDH, where the SCOTUS not only upheld states rights, but individual rights as well, although they did clarify with individuals, that it was competent people who had the right to refuse medical service, even if that refusal meant certain death. If people have the right to do that, they certainly have the right to refuse health insurance, and Cruzan is strong case law towards supporting any individuals assertion that this HCR Bill is unconstitutional on the grounds it violates a persons right to informed consent.

reply to post by Grayelf2009

---

Yes, it means, just like most right-wing talking points, that the notion/wish/hope/prayer that this bill is somehow unconstitutional is patently false.

Elections have consequences. The whiny sour grapes has got to stop, it's getting embarrassing and potentially dangerous. Soon enough, one of these pussified Timothy McVeigh wannabes is going to become more than just an admirer, and become a traitorous murdering copycat.

Best,
Skunknuts

reply to post by Grayelf2009

---

As long as the Supreme Court strikes down parts or all of it as unconstitutional, the ruling would apply to all states.

As for Steve Six, the Kansas Attorney General, well, he's a Democrat, as is the governor. Its not a surprise that they'd drop any possibility of a lawsuit. Party first.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Grayelf2009

---

As long as the Supreme Court strikes down parts or all of it as unconstitutional, the ruling would apply to all states.

As for Steve Six, the Kansas Attorney General, well, he's a Democrat, as is the governor. Its not a surprise that they'd drop any possibility of a lawsuit. Party first.

Um, saving millions of taxpayer dollars by not pursuing a fruitless unjustified claim is the definition of putting his state first. Choosing the most unqualified vice presidential candidate ever in an attempt to bolster the electoral chances of an antiquated cancer survivor is the epitome of party-first mentality. All the more Orwellian considering the GOPs chosen slogan of 'country first,' as well as the damage of releasing the scourge of that woman upon us.

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 4/5/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by skunknuts

---

I have still yet to find anywhere in Article 1 (or in any other part of the Constitution) where the Federal, State or Local Government has the authority to require by law the purchase of any tangible item or service in order to be a law abiding citizen. I have, however, found many parts that would strongly imply that they cannot.

But by all means, please enlighten me as to which enumerated power grants such a condition of compulsory servitude for the citizenry.

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by Grayelf2009

---

Yes, it means, just like most right-wing talking points, that the notion/wish/hope/prayer that this bill is somehow unconstitutional is patently false.

Elections have consequences. The whiny sour grapes has got to stop, it's getting embarrassing and potentially dangerous. Soon enough, one of these pussified Timothy McVeigh wannabes is going to become more than just an admirer, and become a traitorous murdering copycat.

Best,
Skunknuts

Get a grip, TROLL!

Last time I checked, "Consequences" didn't involve abrogating the Constitution and declaring oneself king! The role of "president" comes with SPECIFIC legal constraints. Your boy doesn't get it - yet! But he will! He'll certainly get it, in the end!

Originally posted by krunchy

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If people have the right to do that, they certainly have the right to refuse health insurance, and Cruzan is strong case law towards supporting any individuals assertion that this HCR Bill is unconstitutional on the grounds it violates a persons right to informed consent.

I'm curious... is there a legal difference between refusing treatment based on informed consent, and being forced to pay for the treatment? Because The SCOTUS might see them as two different things.

This, of course, is the sneaky way in which Congress passed this Bill by tasking the IRS to handle the dissenters. As long as you are a taxpayer as defined by Title 26 of the IRC, then you are subject to the whims of the IRS. Of course, if one is willing to read more than 2000 pages of a health care Bill, why stop there, and why not read the IRC as well and find out for yourself if you are one who has been statutorily defined as a taxpayer.

No one will force you to pay anything, the IRS will simply begin by either deducting it from any refund owed, or if no refund is owed then they will bill that taxpayer, and attempting to fight the health care Bill by entering a tax court to argue fundamental rights not acknowledge by that court won't help at all. A tax court can not offer any remedy for your redress of grievances, and would not be the proper court of jurisdiction to challenge the Constitutionality of the HCR Bill.

If you are a taxpayer as specifically defined by USC CODE: Title 26 7701 (a) 14, then you are indeed liable for any fines imposed on you due to lack of acceptable health insurance. Ever wonder what made you a statutorily defined taxpayer? Well your own liability of course! Ever wonder what made you liable for the so called "Personal Income Tax" to begin with? Find the Section in the Internal Revenue Code that makes you liable for the tax, if you can. First it would be good to know that subject of the tax you might think you are liable for. What is the subject of the so called "Personal Income Tax"? I am not sure anyone can answer that question and find any Section of the code to back them up.

It is hard to imagine where the SCOTUS would rule that a person has the right to refuse medical service but must pay for it anyway. I wouldn't even know where to look to find any precedent that they might be able to rely on to make such an absurd assertion, (no offense to you, I'm just saying that's all), and it is not in The Courts nature to invent law that would justify abrogating a persons right. While SCOTUS does look hard to see how any legislation being challenged did indeed work within the bounds of Constitutional restraints, the lawyers defending this legislation will have to a lot of dazzling with B.S., because it is doubtful they have enough brilliance to convince the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to mandate people purchase private health insurance policies.

If a person refuses medical service, then why should they pay for it? Either the health insurance being mandated has to be accepted after informed consent, and that acceptance would be your voluntary purchase of the policy, or there was no contract obligating you to any debt. I am not exactly sure what you mean, but I suspect you are wondering what sort of legal B.S. can they come up with to shoot our rights down, and for the most part, Dred Scot being a huge exception, they lean towards upholding the rights of an individual.



[edit on 5-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by skunknuts

---

I have still yet to find anywhere in Article 1 (or in any other part of the Constitution) where the Federal, State or Local Government has the authority to require by law the purchase of any tangible item or service in order to be a law abiding citizen. I have, however, found many parts that would strongly imply that they cannot.

But by all means, please enlighten me as to which enumerated power grants such a condition of compulsory servitude for the citizenry.

Are you required to carry auto insurance in your State?

Originally posted by damwel

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by skunknuts

---

I have still yet to find anywhere in Article 1 (or in any other part of the Constitution) where the Federal, State or Local Government has the authority to require by law the purchase of any tangible item or service in order to be a law abiding citizen. I have, however, found many parts that would strongly imply that they cannot.

But by all means, please enlighten me as to which enumerated power grants such a condition of compulsory servitude for the citizenry.

Are you required to carry auto insurance in your State?

States are not restricted by Constitution in the same fashion the federal government is. Further, each state has a DMV where people go to voluntarily to register their car, where the bill of sale of the car is transferred immediately to the DMV and upon registration a title is offered in exchange, and then these same people ask for a license to drive. If you are going to ask the state permission to drive, it shouldn't be any surprise they will tell you to get auto insurance some point down the road, and if you don't want to play that game then you can't be a member of the DMV club any longer. Of course, when the DMV asserts that "driving is a privilege and not a right", has any one ever asked by what authority they make such claim? It's not like that was so fifty years ago, it certainly wasn't so at the advent of the automobile and there sure as hell wasn't any Department of Horse and Buggy's before there was a DMV.

The point is, whatever authority is not clearly lined out for the federal government are authorities either reserved for the state or the people.

Another SCOTUS ruling which could prove very troublesome for all those pricey "Constitutional scholars" who keep insisting the HCR Bill is perfectly legal, is U.S. v Lopez, where the Court flat out rejected Congresses Commerce Clause argument for a particular federal gun law.

In the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivering the opinion.

While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 18 days ago with 81 member flags

People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 3 days ago with 72 member flags

Federal appeals court: Illinois cannot enforce ban on recording police officers
  Posted 19 days ago with 45 member flags

Critical Mass Has Arrived: Fast & Furious Scandal - Dems Join With GOP
  Posted 17 days ago with 32 member flags

Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags

President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags

Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 6 days ago with 24 member flags

Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: