Thread: Obamacare Challenge

Obamacare Challenge

http://www.judicialwatch.org/obamacare-challenge/

Judicial Watch is considering litigation challenging President Obama’s rewriting of Obamacare. Specifically, President Obama has unilaterally rewritten the law to delay the “employer mandate,” which was scheduled to go in effect on January 1, 2014, for at least a year. At the same time, he did not rewrite the law to delay the “individual mandate,” which requires nearly all Americans to have Obama-approved health insurance by that same date or pay a tax penalty.

Many Americans are caught in the middle. They are obligated to have Obama-approved health insurance, but their employers are not obligated to provide it, at least for another year. As a result, these Americans will be forced to purchase Obama-approved health insurance on an Obamacare-created health insurance exchange or pay the tax penalty. Either way, they’re out-of-pocket.
If you are going to have to purchase Obama-approved health insurance through an Obamacare-created health insurance exchange or pay a tax penalty because your employer, which would have been covered by the employer mandate, is dropping or does not provide health insurance, you may have a claim to challenge President Obama’s unilateral rewriting of the law.
We obviously object to the employer mandate, the individual mandate, and the entire Obamacare law, but we understand that, under the U.S. Constitution, the law can only be changed by legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president. President Obama evidently wants to delay at least some of the ill effects of his health care scheme until after the 2014 congressional elections. But politics do not trump the Constitution or the rule of law.
If you think your circumstances fit the bill and would be interested in being a plaintiff in a challenge to Obama’s unconstitutional power grab, then please contact us by replying to this email address:obamacarechallenge@judicialwatch.org.
Feel free to share this email with others you think might also have a claim as described here.

Originally Posted by Reciprocity

Obamacare Challenge

http://www.judicialwatch.org/obamacare-challenge/

Judicial Watch is considering litigation challenging President Obama’s rewriting of Obamacare. Specifically, President Obama has unilaterally rewritten the law to delay the “employer mandate,” which was scheduled to go in effect on January 1, 2014, for at least a year. At the same time, he did not rewrite the law to delay the “individual mandate,” which requires nearly all Americans to have Obama-approved health insurance by that same date or pay a tax penalty.

Many Americans are caught in the middle. They are obligated to have Obama-approved health insurance, but their employers are not obligated to provide it, at least for another year. As a result, these Americans will be forced to purchase Obama-approved health insurance on an Obamacare-created health insurance exchange or pay the tax penalty. Either way, they’re out-of-pocket.
If you are going to have to purchase Obama-approved health insurance through an Obamacare-created health insurance exchange or pay a tax penalty because your employer, which would have been covered by the employer mandate, is dropping or does not provide health insurance, you may have a claim to challenge President Obama’s unilateral rewriting of the law.
We obviously object to the employer mandate, the individual mandate, and the entire Obamacare law, but we understand that, under the U.S. Constitution, the law can only be changed by legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president. President Obama evidently wants to delay at least some of the ill effects of his health care scheme until after the 2014 congressional elections. But politics do not trump the Constitution or the rule of law.
If you think your circumstances fit the bill and would be interested in being a plaintiff in a challenge to Obama’s unconstitutional power grab, then please contact us by replying to this email address:obamacarechallenge@judicialwatch.org.
Feel free to share this email with others you think might also have a claim as described here.

I think John Q public should get a waiver while all the politicians test out there wonderful obamcare for themselves..we need to take them off the tax payer dole, it clearly shows they don't work for us...

Remember that the US Supreme Court actually re-wrote parts of Obamacare by interpeting it as a tax. The Supreme Court can only interpet Legistration and make rulings and opinion not deliberatly misinterpret it so it will pass, just that alone makes Obamacare null and void. The Supreme court over stepped its authority. The correct action by the court would have been to reject it and send back to congress for revision.


Why did the Chief Justice CHEAT to save ObamaCare?


By Coach Collins, on July 2nd, 2012
by Doug Book, staff writer

Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the specific language of congress by claiming in his ObamaCare ruling that the penalty which the lawmakers had clearly attached to the individual mandate was actually a tax. It was the only way in which the Affordable Care Act could be saved, for the Court rejected the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clause defenses as constitutional grounds for the existence of the law.
By “penciling in” the tax language necessary to satisfy his own requirement of constitutionality, Roberts behaved no differently from any liberal, activist judge so often criticized by conservatives for judicial malfeasance; that is, he cheated rather than rule against a personally favored piece of legislation.
The question is WHY? WHY did the Chief Justice defraud the Court and the American public rather than rule ObamaCare unconstitutional?
In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A (the individual mandate) is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.” (1)
No, Mr. Chief Justice. Section 5000A may be reasonably re-written BY CONGRESS as a tax, but it may not be READ that way because that is NOT the way in which congress WROTE it! A great many laws may be reasonably re-written into something they are not, thus bringing them into line with the personal views of justice, propriety or constitutionality held by the judge preforming the artful edit. But that is not the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice.
As Justice Scalia writes in his dissent, “…Although this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of the statute…or judicially rewriting it.” In short, the Supreme Court must not “… rewrite [a] statute to be what it is not.” (1)
So why did the Chief Justice do just that? Was it because:

1.) Roberts is so adamant about going down in history, he is willing to do it by making a ruling devastating to the liberty of the American people?
2.) Roberts is in reality a conservative activist? Knowing a majority of Americans favor the end of ObamaCare and its creators, he believed his ruling would rouse conservatives across the nation to the defeat of Obama and repeal of the law?
3.) Roberts actually believed what he did to be right and proper?
Chief Justice Roberts cunningly transformed the ObamaCare individual mandate penalty into a tax and then chose to ignore the necessity of defining the type of tax he had created. After all, giving a name to the tax would have required Roberts show Congress had the constitutional authority to impose and collect it!
Exactly why he did all of this we may never know. If by reason of arrogance or misdirected activism, it would be alarming. If because he actually thought it right, it would be terrifying. After all, this man might be the chief justice for another 3 decades!

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach