It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Health Care Unconstitutional: Obama Sedition?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
(Note: Did not see this particular posting in the search, Please delete if already posted)

Yes, that's a strong word. It may also be appropriate. The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.


Source

So, as i am understanding the article, and the break-down of the legal info, says that it's an injunction against the National Healthcare reform (Obama-care).

And the above quoted text states that they (The White-house) is going to ignore the Federal Courts ruling, and proceed with the overly large, unknown piece of legislation.

To me, this speaks volumes of information. It says that the current Administration is a bunch of Shills.

This should cause outrage, and protests and mass outrage.




Except in this case The White House has now declared its intent to intentionally disobey the law as declared by the court.


The entire Judge's written decision, 78 pages, is also included in the article.

Have a read through, and see if you agree with or against this madness.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
We are watching a true constitutional crisis unfold in front of our eyes.

students will be studying this in the history books far into the future.

the plaintiffs' counsel will have to go back into judge vinson's court and file contempt charges.

the executive branch has overstepped it's constitutionally allowed authority.

stay tuned, guys and gals. its gonna get hot.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Cognitive Dissonance

Obama and the US government is telling the Egyptian people and the government that they should listen to the people.

But here in the US, the government tells the people to shut up and sit down.

Hmmmmm, things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Cognitive Dissonance

Obama and the US government is telling the Egyptian people and the government that they should listen to the people.

But here in the US, the government tells the people to shut up and sit down.

Hmmmmm, things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm!



The universal "Do not do as we do, Do as we tell you!"

It's just a crock of junk, makes me wonder, seriously, why people don't sit up and take notice at the hypocrisy!

Thats it, I want off the ride please.. I'm feeling sick, and disgusted..



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Yes just make sure the corporate masters in the insurance company can drop you for any reason or refuse to pay for a procedure.

Is the government mandate for everyone to have health insurance unconstitutional? Yes, yes it is. But just going back to the old status quo isn't the solution.

But I am sure that our conservative friends will side with the insurance companies to make sure that they can drop you from coverage, or refuse to pay for procedures even though your premiums are paid up.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
One Federal judge in Florida can't overturn legislation...sorry, it doesn't work like that.

It will go to the Supreme Court and that decsion will be the one that matters.


Personally I wish they would fast track it to the Supreme Court...because I believe they will uphold it using the commerce clause.


And then...everyone can stop crying about it...once the Supreme Court rules...that is final.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


The government, even under the trade clause, still is not supposed to be able to "mandate" that we "buy" anything.

So how exactly is the "Obama-care" constitutional and legal? Just because it's signed into law?

Whats next then, saying we all must eat 2lb of Broccoli a week? We all must buy some other some crap?

If the precedent is set, then it opens pandora's box, and we will end up being forced, by "law" to buy all sorts of other things. Because you know the Corporate empires will have the lobbyists ramming "must buy" crap down our throats.

This whole things needs to be quashed before we end up with gobs and gobs of other "added" items that we don't even know about yet, stuffed down our throats.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cygnis
 



The government, even under the trade clause, still is not supposed to be able to "mandate" that we "buy" anything.

So how exactly is the "Obama-care" constitutional and legal? Just because it's signed into law?


When the bill is written and passed through the house and the senate...they give the constitutional justification in the bill. In this case of the mandate...they used the commerce clause.

And so yes it is Constitutional and Legal until the Supreme Court of the United States says otherwise. This is how the system works...this is how it has always worked...checks and balances and all that. No one said the checks and balances were instantaneous.


As for the rest of your comment...I don't buy the whole "pandora's box" analogy. The justification is that Health Insurance affects interstate commerce...and so it falls under the federal government's jurisdiction. If it is ruled that it isn't...then it is under State's jurisdiction.


Here is a something for you to think about though. Even if the Courts decide the Commerce Clause doesn't allow the regulation of health insurance...then it falls to the States...and they could enforce the mandate. Why would they enforce the mandate??? Well the Federal Government could use Medicare funding to enforce the mandate. If you don't as a State enforce the mandate...you don't get Federal Medicare funding. No State would opt out...and it would be legal. Justification would be easy...if States don't participate in the mandate...they will put an unequal burden on the Medicare system/fund because more of their residents will need to rely on Medicare rather than their own insurance.


Either that...or they pass the public option



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehe

The state of South Dakota has introduced a bill to mandate the purchase of guns. Anne Coulter said this the other day that if the government can mandate that you purchase insurance, they could mandate that you buy a gun and a bible. I think she used the Obama clinging to bibles and gun rhetoric that Obama used.

Both stories-

Coulter states that the government should mandate bibles and gun purchases.

South Dakota introduces a bill to make it mandatory to buy a gun to show the IDIOCY of the federal government.
edit on 1-2-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: fix the state who introduced the bill



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


The Executive branch has been doing this for years.

People just get upset when they THINK it' going to cost them money, even if they've had to pay over and over for the mistakes of presidents.

I don't think it's going to get hot. I think it might get mild.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Actually.. I think an argument could be made that they can mandate that you own a firearm.

The bible however? We know where that will go.

Besides. Who needs to purchase a bible? You can get them for free!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


OKAY, I had a conversation at another site with a lawyer. He thinks that a state could actually mandate this. LOL

Think about it, the Constitution does say that the state cannot regulate guns, but does that mean they cannot make it mandatory?

I have been thinking about that. We have to take into consideration the ENTIRE Constitution, not like the progressives do though. Can the state mandate you buy something? I do not think so. Now, the problem that these states do not even fathom, they are getting to the argument on licensing and registration arguments for vehicles. I hope they continue to push this component, because it will lead to the FACT that the government cannot and does not have the right to forcibly make you contract to travel.

I am looking forward to this whole argument. Being a Libertarian, they are going down the road I have hoped they would travel for 20 years.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


WUK, let me ask you, does the government have the right to force YOU to contract with ME?

It does not matter what I provide, can the government force you to contract with someone that you do not want to contract with?

Think about that.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


You can wish in one hand and # in the other.

Sorry, if the government can force you to contract with a private company for something, they can force you to do ANYTHING.

Just because liberals/progressives/socialists/communists/fascists or whatever you are calling yourself lately, believe that FORCED contractual obligations are a good thing, does not make it so.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
once the Supreme Court rules...that is final.

Not if there is a Revolution
and a new set of chief justices
repeal.

What the Courts do .....
the streets can undo.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Hey Boondock, do you think the Republic of Wisconsin cared when the Supreme Court stated that they had to return fugitive slaves?


It is so funny when ignorance is so prevalent nowadays.

Yes, 9 folks in black robes are SOOOO much more intelligent than the other 300 million folks in the US. Do you not feel so loved when you have someone SOOOO much more intelligent than you telling you that they know what is best for you? LOL

Anyway, keep up the great work. By the way, that movie is one of my favorites.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Wait the same corporate "masters" the Obama met with behind closed doors? Please don't act as if the Democrats are not beholden to corporate interests it is very naive. Politicians are all beholden to various groups corporate or otherwise.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by MindSpin
 


You can wish in one hand and # in the other.

Sorry, if the government can force you to contract with a private company for something, they can force you to do ANYTHING.

Just because liberals/progressives/socialists/communists/fascists or whatever you are calling yourself lately, believe that FORCED contractual obligations are a good thing, does not make it so.


And the Monarchist, Fascist Oligarchy loving freedom lovers believe that people with money should be able to default on their contracts because they have the ability to wear down anyone in a court battle
Their influence forced us all to stick in the confines they dictated, which ultimately lead to this unconstitutional compromise over SOCIALISTIC competition. Then they are to chicken to admit that they do not mind the corporate tyranny because thats the way they role/roll.
edit on 1-2-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


There YOU GO!

How bout enforcing the LAW!?

Since the Dems and the Reps destroyed the rule of LAW, we should hang them up by the yardarm!

Hey, there is one thing and one thing only that I ask, if we are to be a society, we have to have one set of laws. They have to be adhered to. They cannot be different for different classes, they cannot be different for different stations. I do understand why the founders made a different set for those in the government. But, the problem was, I am sure it was meant to remove them if they broke the law. When was the last time these POS were ever removed?

Janky, even in a socialist system, things would be better-IF the RULE OF LAW was followed. A certain set of LAWS that had to be followed. Because without it, we have feudal systems. Kinda like what is going on now. Obama decides WHO has to follow the new laws and who does not.

I even said, why not just make it that NO ONE has to follow the law until it is fully implemented. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO, that would be FAIR and follow the tenet of "Equal under the LAW". Cannot have that!



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by MindSpin
once the Supreme Court rules...that is final.

Not if there is a Revolution
and a new set of chief justices
repeal.

What the Courts do .....
the streets can undo.


So if you don't like the Courts rulings...just kill them and replace them with Judges that will rule in the way you want them to.


Yeah...that sounds like a country I want to live in.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join