It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Obamacare: Contract killer

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:25 AM
Obamacare: Contract killer

This headline certainly can be taken in two ways.

The Institute for Justice is pointing out one way that the ObamaCare mandate to purchase insurance affects general contract law that has been well established for centuries.

Usually, a contract requires the mutual agreement of all parties entering the endeavor.

Mandating a forced payment for health insurance is not necessarily a "contract".

Published: February 27, 2012 -- By: Times-Dispatch Staff | Richmond Times

Just when you think everything that can be said about Obamacare's constitutionality has been said, along comes another legal brief that makes a new point.

The latest was filed by the Arlington-based Institute for Justice, a nonpartisan, libertarian public-interest law firm. The institute points out that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate — the requirement to purchase insurance — is not only an unprecedented expansion of federal power. It also undermines several centuries of contract law.

From Hugo Grotius in the 17th century through William Story in the 19th and up to the present, legal doctrine has held that contracts are not valid unless they are entered into by mutual assent. If one party signs a contract as the result of fraud or under duress, it cannot be valid. But if Congress compels people to buy insurance policies — not as a precondition of exercising a privilege such as driving, but as a consequence of having been born — then, the institute argues, this would undermine centuries of contract law.

Contract obamaCare

Well, that's one way to look at "Contract Killer",

The other way is up to the imagination !!

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

Another hit for you, congratulations.

In criminal law, a forced confession can't be used in court, it has no legal value. I think the point that you and the article are making is that this administration is not concerned with law, rather it is only concerned with doing what it wants to do, and running over anything (like law) that stands in the way.

In the upcoming election there will be discussion about all sorts of issues; energy, unemployment, foreign policy, taxes, etc.

But there is an overriding issue, that is are we a government of law, or a government of one man's will?

I hate to endorse a candidate as early as this, but I am officially for anybody running against our current President.

With respect,

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:50 AM

not as a precondition of exercising a privilege such as driving

Many people have tried to argue that Obamacare's mandate will be upheld because states require us to carry liability insurance. That argument, however, is specious. Automobile insurance is required not to protect the driver, but to protect potential victims of the driver. Health insurance is designed to protect the individual that purchases it from the high costs of medical care.

The article is right on the mark. A contract made under duress is not a contract, it is extortion.



log in