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.

 

Obamacare Day 3: Court May Strike Down Entire Law, Not Just Mandate

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Obamacare Day 3: Court May Strike Down Entire Law, Not Just Mandate

The issue of “severability” is a main issue.

Can ObamaCare as it is, function without the infamous "Mandate" ?

Can the Court in fact "sever" that part, or must they strike down the whole law ?

Many legislated laws have a "severability clause" to deal with such questions.

ObamaCare has no such clause !!
(although some initial drafts may have, and were removed)

This article suggests that the law's interconnected parts will prevent a simple "Mandate only" strike down.

One argument is that the "Mandate" is key to financing the entire program.


March 28, 2012 -- PatDollard.com

Excerpted from Breitbart - If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare’s individual mandate (which is very likely after yesterday), will it also strike down President Obama’s entire 2,700-page law? The justices signaled they might do so during the third day of Supreme Court arguments.

Most of the time when part of a law is invalid, courts “sever” that part from the rest of the law and save the rest. This ruling of “severability” often coincides with the law at issue having a severability clause, where Congress declares that if part of the law if found unconstitutional, a court should save the rest. Courts can sever a law even without such a clause, but it gives the court more latitude because there’s no rock-solid indication that Congress wanted that outcome.

The Supreme Court has three issues when it comes to Obamacare. It can (1) totally sever the individual mandate section, retaining the other 450 sections; (2) partially sever the mandate, striking down some sections but keeping the rest, or (3) can hold the mandate “totally nonseverable” and strike down the entire Obamacare law.



The attorney for the challenger states and private businesses, Paul Clement, explained: “What makes this different is that the provisions that have constitutional difficulties or are tied at the hip to those provisions that have the constitutional difficulty are the very heart of this Act… they are interconnected to the exchanges, which are then connected to the tax credits, which are also connected to the employer mandates, which is also connected to some of the revenue offsets, which is also connected to Medicaid; if you follow that through what you end up with at the end of that process is just sort of a hollow shell.”

So in order to go the route of partial severability, the justices would have to go through Obamacare line by line, guessing which parts Congress would want to keep and which ones it would not.

The Leg Bone's Connected to the Hip Bone, the Hip Bone's Connected to the ...


Many opinions are starting to wonder if specific "Time bombs" or "Poison Pills"
were inserted and/or purposefully omitted to eventually arrive at a different agenda by default.

Interesting concept if true. And possibly even a brilliant strategy !!

Remember -- Lawyers wrote the damn thing in the first place !!




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Didn't the Dems insure they wrote in something to prevent the law from being struck down as a whole by a future Congress over the Mandate issue? I'd imagine that means absolutely nothing to the Supreme Court since the law is quite literally what the 9 of them say it is....but this could come as a real kick for Obama and Co.

I distinctly recall Pelosi and the others being so proud of themselves because they had designed this so it couldn't be undone. Well...I'm going to throw a small party at my place for a few like minded friends and we're getting drunk the night this ruling comes down. Either way.


If Obama gets his Care bill thrown back at him, it'll be an evening of celebration and joy. If SCOTUS chokes, then it'll be an evening of reflection and consideration of the future.

Either way...Oh Yes, the day this decision is handed down to the nation, I definitely will have a small party.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Time will tell but this may be further proof that something BIG is happening. Given the facts about this case, any 12 year old would find the proposed law is unconstitutional on many levels. Yet until today, constitutionality seemed to have little effect on the supreme court's never ending war on civili liberty, state's rights and the concept of limiting federal power.

Maybe those self righteous son's of bitches are actually afraid they will be arrested for treason? Perhaps the fear of God and the wrath of citizens storming the Bastille has helped them to see the light?

For now, I will take any win we can get. Let's hope this is a preview of coming attractions. I am becoming more confident every day that 2012 will be the year of freedom.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


Hate to rain on your parade, but it took us over 100 years to get this far, it will not just end on one day. It might be the catalyst for freedom though



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Didn't the Dems insure they wrote in something to prevent the law from being struck down as a whole by a future Congress over the Mandate issue? I'd imagine that means absolutely nothing to the Supreme Court since the law is quite literally what the 9 of them say it is....but this could come as a real kick for Obama and Co.

I distinctly recall Pelosi and the others being so proud of themselves because they had designed this so it couldn't be undone. Well...I'm going to throw a small party at my place for a few like minded friends and we're getting drunk the night this ruling comes down. Either way.


If Obama gets his Care bill thrown back at him, it'll be an evening of celebration and joy. If SCOTUS chokes, then it'll be an evening of reflection and consideration of the future.

Either way...Oh Yes, the day this decision is handed down to the nation, I definitely will have a small party.



Well if the Dems had placed a severability clause in the bill, that would have made it easier to "sever".

From what I understand, the clause was in early drafts, but then removed (like "severed"
)

That would appear to be a "mistake".

But, what if all the "connectivity" made anything "severable" to be impossible ?

Or, as I say, perhaps there is a different "goal" ??

When Peelosi and Reid were pushing the "can't be undone" malarkey, I was very very suspicious.
Both of them are very clever "psy-opps" players.

I think all players knew well in advance of a challenge in the Supreme Court.
In fact, they anticipated it, and planned for it IMO.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
The "Can't be undone" is a bunch of malarky, their are at least two constitutional ways to get rid of a bill, by the states and by the representatives.

Them stating it can't be undone is probably a psy-ops way of if it does get taken down to make people think it was not constitutionally done and cause bad blood. And of course use it against the "guys that want grandma to eat dog food and die" people.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
From all the talk I have heard, it the mandate is "severed", it would likely lead to a straight shot full court press in Congress to legislate "single payer", which is code for the government pays for ALL health care. This may infact be what they planned for. The more far left dems want just that, and this may have been the plan. But if the whole thing is thrown out, they may also throw a real wrench in their plans.

Pelosi, "We have to pass it to see what's in it"...........



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
First off...If there ever was a "Severability Clause" it was removed at the behest of Republicans and the Insurance industry. Allowing severability of the mandate would leave Insurance companies on the hook for covering all types of folks, including those with pre-existing conditions...while not having the mandate to cover it. The only way it works is with the mandate or single payer system.

Secondly....The SCOTUS has made it clear that they will have to toss the whole law or keep it, they won't sever the mandate. They literally said it was not thier responsibility to read the 2700 page bill as well as that digging into the legislation to figure out how the Mandate effects every other component and slicing out those portions would be over-stepping thier role and stomping on Congress. At that stage they would be creating legislation after hacking up and stringing back together a 2700 page bill.

So the whole bill will stand or fall. If it falls there will be a crap-storm as Millions of Americans are suddenly dropped from insurance. If it stands?...Congress will spend the next decade tweaking the bill and that was the original intent when the bill was passed.

I would have preferred they sever the Mandate, which would be the shortest course to the Public Option as the insurance companies would have to hand off those people they want to drop someplace. But like I said...severing the mandate doesn't look like it will happen...none of the justices seem for it.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Too right any congress can NOT limit the power of any future congress they may think they can but the truth is the can't and they know it.

Still not holding my breath on the Scotus decision only way we are going to get rid of it is by congress and the potus and of course that would be Republican.

Even if the House and Senate and Potus all go Republican don't see it happening Obama care is just a talking point for both left and right.

Government stupidity is forever.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
From all the talk I have heard, it the mandate is "severed", it would likely lead to a straight shot full court press in Congress to legislate "single payer", which is code for the government pays for ALL health care. This may infact be what they planned for. The more far left dems want just that, and this may have been the plan. But if the whole thing is thrown out, they may also throw a real wrench in their plans.

Pelosi, "We have to pass it to see what's in it"...........


Here are her exact words:

(youtube caption)

Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it."


Notice she says "But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that YOU can find out what is in it."

SHE already knew !!




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
As I mentioned in another thread, the real important issue here is what the SCOTUS said in regards to the constitutionality of single-payer healthcare. This opens the door to pass legislation down the road that allows people to participate in a government-backed program without a mandate.

So even though Obamacare may be overturned, this may have opened doors that the Republicans did not intent to open...and coming from conservative judges.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Somebody is saying that the Senate removed the severability clause.
(specifically the Democrats)

I can't find any verifiable sources as to who actually "sponsored" the removal.

My theory is that both sides may have ??

The video says Harry Reid knew it was gone !!!! (unless he forgot to "Reid" it
)


Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli agreed with Greta Van Susteren that the entire Obamacare Law must be thrown out because Democrats removed the severability clause in the bill when they voted on it in the US Senate. Therefore, if the Supreme Court decides that the individual mandate is illegal, then they must throw out entire law.

Dems Removed Severability Clause So Entire Obamacare Law Must Be Thrown Out includes video......




edit on Mar-29-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)







edit on Mar-29-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
As I mentioned in another thread, the real important issue here is what the SCOTUS said in regards to the constitutionality of single-payer healthcare. This opens the door to pass legislation down the road that allows people to participate in a government-backed program without a mandate.

So even though Obamacare may be overturned, this may have opened doors that the Republicans did not intent to open...and coming from conservative judges.


Even so, any new law replacing ObamaCare would have to be introduced, voted on and signed. That won't happen this year. And after the debacle of passing an out an out unconstitutional bill, it will hamper (although not decisively so) POTUSs reelection campaign. And after this debacle, EVERYONE is likely to be alot more careful with what is passed in regards to health care, especially en masse in a super large bill. And of course if and when a new bill is introduced, Congress and the Presidency may be an entirely different crew.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


Actually if this gets overturned most likely it will do two things to the election. It will put the right into complacency and motivate the left to vote. By getting this sweetheart deal for insurance companies taken out, makes a single payer system one of the few ways to go. Also if they strike only the mandate down it should be noted that the Government can simply require the States to mandate it if they want Federal funding.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


Actually if this gets overturned most likely it will do two things to the election. It will put the right into complacency and motivate the left to vote. By getting this sweetheart deal for insurance companies taken out, makes a single payer system one of the few ways to go. Also if they strike only the mandate down it should be noted that the Government can simply require the States to mandate it if they want Federal funding.


Perhaps it would motivate the left to vote.

But don't you think the right will advertise that and use it as a campaign tool ?

In fact, it could be just the opposite.

The left voters may simply give up if they think all is lost.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Somebody is saying that the Senate removed the severability clause.
(specifically the Democrats)

I can't find any verifiable sources as to who actually "sponsored" the removal.

My theory is that both sides may have ??



It makes no sense that the Democrats would want to pull the severability clause...and without actual sources and simply blog etc. claims, I am still not buying it.

A Severability Clause specifically would have screwed the Insurance industry...Requiring them to insure everyone without a mandate. A Severability clause in the bill would have actually insured a second chance...and a good one...at the public option if the mandate was stricken down.

I can't logic any reason why the Democrats would pull the clause...and absent actual proof, I call BS.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Somebody is saying that the Senate removed the severability clause.
(specifically the Democrats)

I can't find any verifiable sources as to who actually "sponsored" the removal.

My theory is that both sides may have ??



It makes no sense that the Democrats would want to pull the severability clause...and without actual sources and simply blog etc. claims, I am still not buying it.

A Severability Clause specifically would have screwed the Insurance industry...Requiring them to insure everyone without a mandate. A Severability clause in the bill would have actually insured a second chance...and a good one...at the public option if the mandate was stricken down.

I can't logic any reason why the Democrats would pull the clause...and absent actual proof, I call BS.



Not a bad point.

But why haven't the Dems started shouting about this yet

(especially if they were somehow "forced" or "hoodwinked")

And you would think the Repubs would lay claim to the "removal" by now


The silence from Congress on this issue is deafening !!

Maybe there is a joint hidden agenda afterall ?

"Logic" as we see it as normal people, may not apply.

The politicians Are psychopaths.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Thank god! I can't wait to pay more for insurance and healthcare!

Take that crippled retards, AIDS patients and food service workers!
edit on 29-3-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zarp3333
Time will tell but this may be further proof that something BIG is happening. Given the facts about this case, any 12 year old would find the proposed law is unconstitutional on many levels. Yet until today, constitutionality seemed to have little effect on the supreme court's never ending war on civili liberty, state's rights and the concept of limiting federal power.

Maybe those self righteous son's of bitches are actually afraid they will be arrested for treason? Perhaps the fear of God and the wrath of citizens storming the Bastille has helped them to see the light?

For now, I will take any win we can get. Let's hope this is a preview of coming attractions. I am becoming more confident every day that 2012 will be the year of freedom.


The year of freedom


Back to the Patriot Act and Clean Skys Act and the Clean Water Act and tax breaks for billionaires
PART 17 Act



FREEDOM!!!



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Didn't the Dems insure they wrote in something to prevent the law from being struck down as a whole by a future Congress over the Mandate issue? I'd imagine that means absolutely nothing to the Supreme Court since the law is quite literally what the 9 of them say it is....but this could come as a real kick for Obama and Co.

I distinctly recall Pelosi and the others being so proud of themselves because they had designed this so it couldn't be undone. Well...I'm going to throw a small party at my place for a few like minded friends and we're getting drunk the night this ruling comes down. Either way.


If Obama gets his Care bill thrown back at him, it'll be an evening of celebration and joy. If SCOTUS chokes, then it'll be an evening of reflection and consideration of the future.

Either way...Oh Yes, the day this decision is handed down to the nation, I definitely will have a small party.


Yes they did.

The immediate mandate that all children up to age 26 must be covered. This way, when it begins to appear that the law will be repealed the Democrats can fire up that the justices want to kill all American children from 21-26 by taking away their healthcare.

They intentionally set up all American children 21-26 as human shields just like the terrorists they are so they can engage in unconstitutional activity.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join