Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Legal Challenge to Obamacare Moves Forward

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266

    Legal Challenge to Obamacare Moves Forward

    Legal Challenge to Obamacare Moves Forward

    posted on November 10, 2012 by Giacomo



    Once Obamacare was passed, there was a host of legal challenges filed. Most of them centered around the insurance mandate and whether or not it was constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to purchase a product.
    One of the lawsuits launched against Obamacare involved a businessman named Matt Sissel. The Pacific Legal Foundation took on Sissel’s case. When the US Supreme Court agreed to hear three of the legal challenges, Pacific Legal Foundation decided to put a hold on Sissel’s lawsuit to see what the Supreme Court would rule.
    From the reactions and comments of the Supreme Court Justices during the arguments of both sides, many people believed that the high court would overturn the mandate and possibly all of Obamacare. On June 28, 2012 the United States Supreme Court stunned the nation by upholding the entire Obamacare package. Chief Justice John Roberts broke before the four – four tie by ruling that the penalty part of the insurance mandate was a tax.
    Once Roberts ruled the penalty for not complying with the insurance mandate was a tax to be enforced by the IRS, most other legal challenges to Obamacare fell by the wayside. However, because Roberts ruled the penalty of tax it opened up a new legal challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare that Pacific Legal Foundation plan to use on behalf of Matt Sissel.
    According to the Article 1, Section 7, of the United States Constitution any legislation to create a tax to be collected by the federal government must originate in the House of Representatives. This is known as the Origination Clause. PLF claims that the original bill that was used to create Obamacare originated in the Senate and not the House, thus making Obamacare illegal. Based on this information they are now moving forward with the case in the court system.
    Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that PLF’s argument based upon the Origination Clause can proceed forward in the court. PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard commented saying:

    “Our commitment is strengthened, and our fight goes on.”





    “With Obamacare, the legislative process was backwards— and that makes it unconstitutional. If it’s a tax, as a Supreme Court called it, then it started in the wrong house.”


    “When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue. The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters— members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”


    Matt Sissel says he is in the legal fight for the long haul. As a small business owner in Iowa City, Sissel said:


    “I am in this lawsuit to defend liberty and the Constitution. That purpose and that promise continue today. My lawsuit is more important than ever, and we’ll move ahead with it, all the way up the judicial system, if necessary.”


    “Quitting is never an option. In the military we learned you don’t stop halfway up the hill. The same goes with our courtroom challenge to Obamacare. I’m grateful to PLF for sharing my determination to move forward.”


    This challenge may be the last hope of fighting off Obamacare and the huge negative impact it is having on our nation, economy, and healthcare industry. This battle may be long and expensive but Sissel and the PFL are determined to see it through to the end. We all need to get behind them and support them in any way possible if there is any hope left to stop the ugly beast known as Obamacare from devouring us all.


  2. #2
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Nullify Obamacare Like Three Other States Already Have

    posted on November 10, 2012 by Philip Hodges


    It’s easy to get down in the dumps when we lose a presidential election. A Minnesota psychologist even said that many people will experience post-election depression. Most of those feelings will wear off in due time. There’s no reason for conservatives to feel apathetic and give up. Sometimes good things can come from losses. Depending on your attitude, it can make you more resolute than before. A Romney victory may have made many of us brush off our hands and think that the fight is finally over. The Obama victory has made us more determined to fight back. As Gary Demar wrote recently:
    “Giving up is just what the liberals and establishment Republicans want us to do. We should be more resolute and put the fear of God into these people by our persistence.”
    If it weren’t for an Obama victory, perhaps there wouldn’t be three states right now passing laws that nullify Obamacare. Granted, these ballot initiatives were passed on Election Day before we knew Obama had won, but hopefully the trend will continue until most states have rendered Obamacare null and void. And if that happens, we can thank Obama’s re-election.
    These states are affirming their sovereignty over the Federal government. I don’t care that the Supreme Court opined that the health care law was Constitutional. The Supreme Court also ruled that a woman has the right to murder her unborn child. That was an opinion over one particular case. Judges don’t make laws; they render opinions, and states should ignore bad judicial opinions. They should also ignore bad Federal laws.

    In Alabama, 59% of voters approved of Amendment 6, which amended their state Constitution to “prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.” This renders Obamacare’s individual and employer mandate null and void.
    In Montana, 65% of voters approved of an act that prohibited the State or Federal government from being able to force anyone to buy health insurance. The act also prohibits any penalties from being levied on anyone who choses not to purchase health insurance.
    Finally, in Wyoming, a measure was passed that stated, “No federal or state law, rule or administrative decision shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”
    Find out if your representative supports such a law. If not, petition them to. Get involved in a local Tea Party group. Rally local support to pressure your state legislature to pass legislation that puts the Federal government in its place.




    Nullify Obamacare Like Three Other States Already Have

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    MORE SCORN FOR CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AS DETAILS OF SWITCH LEAK


    by JOEL B. POLLAK 2 Jul 2012

    As Breitbart News suggested last week, it appears Chief Justice John Roberts did, in fact, switch his vote on the Obamacare decision under pressure from President Barack Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media. John Fund at National Review has more details today--including evidence about abizarre address by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Judiciary Committee, that singled out Roberts himself:

    Indeed, Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt., D.) , the chair of the Judiciary Committee, suddenly took to the floor on May 14 and directly addressed Roberts, urging him in harshly partisan tones to uphold Obamacare and maintain “the proper role of the judicial branch.”

    Stewart Baker, a partner at the Washington law firm Steptoe & Johnson, writes at the Volokh Conspiracy that he found the whole campaign against Roberts weird and unusual, given that the justices’ conference vote on Obamacare had been held six weeks earlier. Why “would the chair of the Judiciary Committee risk the appearance of trying to harshly strongarm the Court when his remarks wouldn’t make the slightest difference?” he asks. “The Leahy speech reads like it was written for an audience of one. It offers flattery and it offers threats, all of them personalized to appeal to Chief Justice Roberts alone.”

    Fund adds that the White House likely benefited from leaks at the Court, and almost certainly knew of Roberts's switch--just as it almost certainly knew of the initial vote to throw out the individual mandate in March:

    The week before the Supreme Court announced its decision, the White House was clearly hinting to many in the media and on Capitol Hill that they expected a 5–4 opinion that would hinge on the taxing-power issue. Did someone leak? Sunday on Face the Nation, Jan Crawford of CBS News said that two reliable sources told her that Roberts originally voted, in late March, with the four conservative justices to invalidate the individual mandate. According to Crawford, Roberts suddenly changed sides some six weeks later and then resisted “a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold.”

    I’ve learned from my own sources that after voting to invalidate the mandate, the chief did express some skepticism about joining the four conservatives in throwing out the whole law. At the justices’ conference, there was discussion about accepting the Obama administration’s argument, which was that, if the individual mandate was removed, the provisions governing community rating and guaranteed issue of insurance would have to go too but that the rest of the law might stand. The chief justice was equivocal, though, in his views on that point.
    The more the public learns about Roberts's decision, the more people are likely to hate it. Fund notes that even David Brooks of the New York Times agrees that Roberts "had to get to a certain result, and he was going to find a way by hook or by crook." It's a conclusion that aptly expresses how Obamacare was conceived, how it was passed, and now how it has been upheld by one of the worst decisions in recent years.

    More Scorn for Chief Justice Roberts as Details of Switch Leak

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member BetsyRoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,262
    Here's another reason to worry, look who plans to profit at our expense: Obamacare sends Indian IT Cos’ pulse racing - The Economic Times

    That's right, with all our unemployed folks still looking for work, foreign companies are looking to swoop in and make bank on Obamacare.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •