Federal Judge Rules Parts of Obamacare Unconstitutional

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think the point was that in one case they wanted to uphold the constitution as they interpreted it (strike down AZ SB1070) and in the other case they wanted to ignore it (in favor of allowing the individual mandate). Therein lies their hypocrisy.

Okay I get that, but neither has had a conclusive interpretation yet.

[mawilson 2,133]

Actually, they are. You consented to the search.

No, I did not.

[mawilson 2,133]

By a wide margin the best health care system is the French one -- a single payer system -- followed by Great Britain and Sweden

1. France does not have a single payer system - it's a hybrid public-private system.
   
2. The UK and Sweden are not even close to being #2 and #3; they are ranked #18 and #23 respectively.
   

[The_Dude 1,142]

No, I did not.

Yes you did, when you bought the ticket.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yes you did, when you bought the ticket.

Show me the fine print that I agreed to when I bought the ticket.

Just how does buying *anything* result in a loss of constitutional rights? Do you even understand what a "right" is?

Edited December 14, 2010 by mawilson

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes you did, when you bought the ticket.

I'd like to see said disclaimer.

The ticket purchase was between myself and an airline, not the government and not the airpot in which the airline flies out of.

There is no contract that can suspend or violate your constitutional rights.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Show me the fine print that I agreed to when I bought the ticket.

Just how does buying *anything* result in a loss of constitutional rights? Do you even understand what a "right" is?

Yes I do know what a right is corky. Do you?

[mawilson 2,133]

Yes I do know what a right is corky. Do you?

I'd still like to see that fine print that says "by clicking yes you agree to waive your 4th amendment rights".

It doesn't exist, because you're not waiving your 4th amendment rights.

The legal justification for these "administrative searches" is a 2007 ruling

from the Ninth Circuit, which established that the 4th amendment is not a bar

to these searches because they are not "unreasonable".

That was a 2007 ruling, mind, before the era of porno scanners and sexual

gropers.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I'd still like to see that fine print that says "by clicking yes you agree to waive your 4th amendment rights".

It doesn't exist, because you're not waiving your 4th amendment rights.

The legal justification for these "administrative searches" is a 2007 ruling

from the Ninth Circuit, which established that the 4th amendment is not a bar

to these searches because they are not "unreasonable".

That was a 2007 ruling, mind, before the era of porno scanners and sexual

gropers.

All that I have read are blogs, and until a judge rules, it's all pure speculation. I don't think that it is a violation of my 4th amendment rights, but I would like to know that there is some intelligence behind the searches, not just random stupidity. The really pathetic part is that they already spent the money on these useless machines.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I would like to know that there is some intelligence behind the searches, not just random stupidity.

i fear we are all in for a letdown on that.

[james&olya 1,121]

I love the ruling. It was such a no brainer to begin with. I also loved how the Socialists received all that money from the health care industry and then made it where we were forced to buy their product at a much increased price. My premiums went so high now. The Socialists look like complete morons now to even try to pull this off. Life just got better from this ruling.

I hope you would also love seeing medicare and social security abolished as those programs are also a form of government mandated insurance. The only distinction being that they are not private, at least not yet. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it! BTW, this ruling is widely expected not to stand up, even by most conservative legal scholars.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I hope you would also love seeing medicare and social security abolished as those programs are also a form of government mandated insurance. The only distinction being that they are not private, at least not yet. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it! BTW, this ruling is widely expected not to stand up, even by most conservative legal scholars.

It is would be a dream if they would abolish them too and can only pray they do. In fact if all here could see what one could do if they put away the same amount on their own would be shocked and actually realize how they are getting screwed. Of course Socialism is so ingrained into so many psyches here that most could never realize anything past their nose. Give me a chance to opt out and I will take it. I am sure most here have heard it called a ponzi scheme and they say it with a reason.

[DEDixon 39]

20 states ask judge to throw out Obama health law

Attorneys for 20 states fighting the new federal health care law told a judge Thursday it will expand the government's powers in dangerous and unintended ways. The states want U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to issue a summary judgment throwing out the health care law without a full trial. They argue it violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

"The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history," David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Vinson.

President Barack Obama's administration counters that Americans should not be allowed to opt out of the overhaul because everyone requires medical care. Government attorneys say the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.

Vinson, who was appointed to the bench almost 30 years ago by President Ronald Reagan, heard arguments Thursday but said he will rule later.

In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson earlier this week became the first federal judge to strike down a key portion of the law when he sided with the state of Virginia and ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional. That case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement.

In Florida, Vinson questioned how the government could halt the massive changes to the nation's health care system that have already begun. Rivkin told him the constitutional violations are more important.

The judge questioned the Obama administration attorneys about whether the government is reaching beyond its power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

"A lot of people, myself included for years, have no health insurance," said Vinson, who described being a law student and paying cash to the doctor who delivered his first child.

"It amounted to about $100 a pound," he said, laughing.

Vinson also grilled government lawyers about their contention that people can be required to have health insurance because everyone needs medical care. Under that logic, he said, Americans could be forced to wear shoes or buy groceries or clothes.

But administration attorney Ian Heath Gershengorn said health insurance is different because it covers catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.

"Those costs, when they come, are unpredictable and substantial," he said.

Gershengorn also defended the administration against the states' claim that it was coercing them into participating in the health care overhaul. The states say the have no choice but to go along with the federal program because billions in Medicaid dollars are at stake.

Gershengorn said the states see huge benefits from Medicaid and the federal government is covering the bulk of the health care overhaul costs.

The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

20 states ask judge to throw out Obama health law

Attorneys for 20 states fighting the new federal health care law told a judge Thursday it will expand the government's powers in dangerous and unintended ways. The states want U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to issue a summary judgment throwing out the health care law without a full trial. They argue it violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

"The act would leave more constitutional damage in its wake than any other statute in our history," David Rivkin, an attorney for the states, told Vinson.

President Barack Obama's administration counters that Americans should not be allowed to opt out of the overhaul because everyone requires medical care. Government attorneys say the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.

Vinson, who was appointed to the bench almost 30 years ago by President Ronald Reagan, heard arguments Thursday but said he will rule later.

In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson earlier this week became the first federal judge to strike down a key portion of the law when he sided with the state of Virginia and ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional. That case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement.

In Florida, Vinson questioned how the government could halt the massive changes to the nation's health care system that have already begun. Rivkin told him the constitutional violations are more important.

The judge questioned the Obama administration attorneys about whether the government is reaching beyond its power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

"A lot of people, myself included for years, have no health insurance," said Vinson, who described being a law student and paying cash to the doctor who delivered his first child.

"It amounted to about $100 a pound," he said, laughing.

Vinson also grilled government lawyers about their contention that people can be required to have health insurance because everyone needs medical care. Under that logic, he said, Americans could be forced to wear shoes or buy groceries or clothes.

But administration attorney Ian Heath Gershengorn said health insurance is different because it covers catastrophic injuries and chronic diseases.

"Those costs, when they come, are unpredictable and substantial," he said.

Gershengorn also defended the administration against the states' claim that it was coercing them into participating in the health care overhaul. The states say the have no choice but to go along with the federal program because billions in Medicaid dollars are at stake.

Gershengorn said the states see huge benefits from Medicaid and the federal government is covering the bulk of the health care overhaul costs.

The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

A simple fix is for states to stop sending payments to the Federal Government. If the Feds never get the money, then they cannot hold it back from the states later on.