Judge: Suit over health overhaul can go to trial

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Judge: Suit over health overhaul can go to trial

PENSACOLA, Fla. – Crucial pieces of a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's health care overhaul can go to trial, with a judge ruling Thursday he wants to hear more arguments over whether it's constitutional to force citizens to buy health insurance.

In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said it also needs to be decided whether it's constitutional to penalize people who do not buy insurance with taxes and to require states to expand their Medicaid programs. Another federal judge in Michigan threw out a similar lawsuit last week.

Vinson set a hearing for Dec. 16. The lawsuits will likely wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his 65-page ruling, Vinson largely agreed with the 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, saying Congress was intentionally unclear when it created penalties in the legislation. The states have argued that Congress is overstepping its constitutional authority by penalizing people for not doing something — not buying health insurance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101014/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

 

[NOVA]

Its freakin' mind blowing that it gets this much attention, its so obviously unconstitutional...only pinheads can't see it..

 

[apple0154]

Judge: Suit over health overhaul can go to trial

PENSACOLA, Fla. – Crucial pieces of a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's health care overhaul can go to trial, with a judge ruling Thursday he wants to hear more arguments over whether it's constitutional to force citizens to buy health insurance.

In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said it also needs to be decided whether it's constitutional to penalize people who do not buy insurance with taxes and to require states to expand their Medicaid programs. Another federal judge in Michigan threw out a similar lawsuit last week.

Vinson set a hearing for Dec. 16. The lawsuits will likely wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his 65-page ruling, Vinson largely agreed with the 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, saying Congress was intentionally unclear when it created penalties in the legislation. The states have argued that Congress is overstepping its constitutional authority by penalizing people for not doing something — not buying health insurance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101014/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit

The article continues with (Excerpt) "Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government. This is nothing new. We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Right Act — constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all those challenges failed," Cutter wrote.(End)

"Do something for the people? Help the people?", shouts the Republican. "Are you crazy?"

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The article continues with (Excerpt) "Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government. This is nothing new. We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Right Act — constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all those challenges failed," Cutter wrote.(End)

"Do something for the people? Help the people?", shouts the Republican. "Are you crazy?"

whats your point? that we shouldn't use the court system to invalidate unconstitutional laws?

your last sentence is total horsepucky...this law doesn't help anyone, well...i guess the insurance company and obama's ego

 

[apple0154]

whats your point? that we shouldn't use the court system to invalidate unconstitutional laws?

your last sentence is total horsepucky...this law doesn't help anyone, well...i guess the insurance company and obama's ego

The point is there will always be those who don't want to help others. Selfish? Greedy? Just miserable because, maybe, no one helped them? Who knows why?

You keep forgetting HCR is a work in progress. The idea is to have a universal system but it wasn't possible to get an agreement at this time. As the people actually experience the benefits, as each benefit comes on line, the majority will demand universal health care just like the citizens have done in every country which has universal care.

That's the main reason behind the strenuous objections we see. Those who oppose it know that as time passes more and more people will want it. It never fails. It has never failed where ever the concept of universal care has started, in any country.

The objectors can read the writing on the wall. They're using sand bags to try and stop the tidal wave of people who will want universal care.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The point is there will always be those who don't want to help others. Selfish? Greedy? Just miserable because, maybe, no one helped them? Who knows why?

You keep forgetting HCR is a work in progress. The idea is to have a universal system but it wasn't possible to get an agreement at this time. As the people actually experience the benefits, as each benefit comes on line, the majority will demand universal health care just like the citizens have done in every country which has universal care.

That's the main reason behind the strenuous objections we see. Those who oppose it know that as time passes more and more people will want it. It never fails. It has never failed where ever the concept of universal care has started, in any country.

The objectors can read the writing on the wall. They're using sand bags to try and stop the tidal wave of people who will want universal care.

see, you're being plain dumb...this bill does not help others...you keep forgetting this is a country governed by the constitution and you hate people who want us to abide by the constitution

it doesn't matter if this bill has the best intentions in the world, if it violates the constitution, it needs to change or overturned....

your bias on this duly noted though

 

[Canceled1]

The point is there will always be those who don't want to help others. Selfish? Greedy? Just miserable because, maybe, no one helped them? Who knows why?

You keep forgetting HCR is a work in progress. The idea is to have a universal system but it wasn't possible to get an agreement at this time. As the people actually experience the benefits, as each benefit comes on line, the majority will demand universal health care just like the citizens have done in every country which has universal care.

That's the main reason behind the strenuous objections we see. Those who oppose it know that as time passes more and more people will want it. It never fails. It has never failed where ever the concept of universal care has started, in any country.

The objectors can read the writing on the wall. They're using sand bags to try and stop the tidal wave of people who will want universal care.

Apple, you don't get a vote, so dummy up. You do in the provinces, but here your opinion is useless.

 

[NOVA]

The article continues with (Excerpt) "Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government. This is nothing new. We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Right Act — constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all those challenges failed," Cutter wrote.(End)

"Do something for the people? Help the people?", shouts the Republican. "Are you crazy?"

More to the point, we saw it with slavery.....unconstitutional bullshit law enacted by Democrats that was so obviously against the constitutional rights of US citizens overturned by the SC....and

NOW WE"LL SEE IT AGAIN...............

Unconstitutional laws and mandates under the guise of "helping people" will not stand as long as the Constitution is the law of the land.....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i'm willing to bet that if violating the 8th amendment and torturing someone to save lives...apple would be against it

even though that arguably helps people....

 

[apple0154]

see, you're being plain dumb...this bill does not help others...you keep forgetting this is a country governed by the constitution and you hate people who want us to abide by the constitution

it doesn't matter if this bill has the best intentions in the world, if it violates the constitution, it needs to change or overturned....

your bias on this duly noted though

It doesn't violate the Constitution. The Preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America", tells us the purpose of the Constitution. The reason for it. What it is supposed to accomplish. When determining if something is Constitutionally valid one has to ask if it complies with the purpose of the Constitution.

Does the HCR promote the "general welfare"? What is "general"? The dictionary defines it as: "of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category." In this case the group is the citizens of the US.

What is "welfare"? The dictionary defines it as: "the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization."

So, "general welfare" is the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc. of all persons or things belonging to a group. So the question to be considered is, "Does ensuring that more people have health coverage and access to health services, does having a healthier population, increase the happiness and prosperity of all citizens (the group)?"

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's obviously constitutional. This judge should be impeached and executed for treason.

 

[apple0154]

Apple, you don't get a vote, so dummy up. You do in the provinces, but here your opinion is useless.

Sweety, you are one comical lady. A US citizen (you) telling a non-citizen (me) that my opinion is useless and I should dummy up.

Yes, that's the general policy of US citizens and their government. Don't interfere in countries where you're not a citizen.

Just think of it as my countering bald-faced lies about universal health care. Just as US citizens seek fairness and want to enlighten the downtrodden that, also, is my goal. Just as dictatorial governments mislead and lie to the people the current government opposition is doing exactly that.

There is not ONE country that can be used as an example of a failed universal plan. Not ONE, diabetic shoes notwithstanding.

But I luv ya, anyway.

 

[apple0154]

i'm willing to bet that if violating the 8th amendment and torturing someone to save lives...apple would be against it

even though that arguably helps people....

You compare HCR to torture?

When you open your wallet how would you describe the pain? Dull ache? A stinging sensation? Throbbing? On a scale of 1 - 10 with 10 being the most imaginable pain endurable what number would you ascribe to opening your wallet?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The article continues with (Excerpt) "Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government. This is nothing new. We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Right Act — constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all those challenges failed," Cutter wrote.(End)

"Do something for the people? Help the people?", shouts the Republican. "Are you crazy?"

how convenient for the article to gloss over the implied threats to pack the courts, forever destroying the checks and balances of a constitutional republic, that was orchestrated and proposed by Democrats.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Does the HCR promote the "general welfare"?

No, it does not.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It doesn't violate the Constitution. The Preamble, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America", tells us the purpose of the Constitution. The reason for it. What it is supposed to accomplish. When determining if something is Constitutionally valid one has to ask if it complies with the purpose of the Constitution.

Does the HCR promote the "general welfare"? What is "general"? The dictionary defines it as: "of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category." In this case the group is the citizens of the US.

What is "welfare"? The dictionary defines it as: "the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization."

So, "general welfare" is the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc. of all persons or things belonging to a group. So the question to be considered is, "Does ensuring that more people have health coverage and access to health services, does having a healthier population, increase the happiness and prosperity of all citizens (the group)?"

if torture saved lives....isn't that for the general welfare? take another approach...many believe our nuking of japan was a war crime...but it benefited our general welfare if you really want to make that an open ended the government can do anything so long as they say it benefits the general welfare...

for example....marijuana benefits people, yet, because of the supremecy clause all states laws are legally void because federal law trumps their laws.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

if torture saved lives....isn't that for the general welfare? take another approach...many believe our nuking of japan was a war crime...but it benefited our general welfare if you really want to make that an open ended the government can do anything so long as they say it benefits the general welfare...

for example....marijuana benefits people, yet, because of the supremecy clause all states laws are legally void because federal law trumps their laws.

Torture isn't a taxing and spending policy.