United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: US Appeals Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic ... /06/29/national/a095044D66.DTL
Published: Jun 29, 2011
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2011-06-29 13:17:47 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 867
Comments: 9
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati has upheld President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The three-judge panel delivered a long opinion Wednesday with disagreement on some issues. But it affirmed a Michigan federal judge's earlier ruling that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
I still can't find that anywhere in my copy of the USCON.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
It'll never stand. The JBTs that now run our police-state think that they can keep squeezing people forever. How naive. People are like water- the more you squeeze, the more just slips through your fingers.
Socialists & Democrats want you to do one thing: "Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce Martin wrote. The opinion upheld a district-court ruling that also found the law constitutional. What congress ... on racial equality --- money - reparations - alternative bizzare lifestyles ! Congress passed a law on the protection of marriage too !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons are for girlie boys !
Banjo boy, quit posting that image!
In a bankrupt country I won't be surprised when a new congress will vote it all down ! what are these liberals judges going to say - they can't do it !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons are for girlie boys !
The three-judge panel delivered a long opinion Wednesday with disagreement on some issues. But it affirmed a Michigan federal judge's earlier ruling that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage. Did the Supreme Court Tip its Hand on ObamaCare? By Frank Miniter On June 16 the U.S. Supreme Court sent a case (U.S. v. Bond) back to a lower court on Tenth Amendment grounds. The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy (the Court's "swing vote"), hints that ObamaCare just might be ruled unconstitutional. How? Justice Kennedy's opinion in U.S. v. Bond showed he still believes the federal government is restricted by the enumerated powers as listed in the U.S. Constitution. His viewpoint was expressed in a case the Lifetime network is probably making a movie about right now. In this case, Carol Anne Bond learned that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant. Bond thought that was great until she found out that the baby was fathered by her husband of 14 years, Clifford. Naturally, Bond, a microbiologist residing in suburban Philadelphia, wanted revenge. She began in the usual way by threatening Haynes over the telephone: "I [am] going to make your life a living hell." Subsequently, Bond's attempts to make Haynes life a "living hell" got her convicted for harassment in 2005. Bond, however, was still out for revenge. Bond next smeared poisonous chemicals, such as an arsenic-based chemical (remember she is a microbiologist) on Haynes' car door handle, mailbox, and other places. Haynes got a burn from the chemicals and reported it to the police. The police, however, didn't know what to make of Haynes' claims. But then the U.S. Postal Inspection Service got involved because the mailbox had been tampered with. After its investigation, Bond was charged with a violating U.S. Code, Section 229, a statute that then prompted federal prosecutors to also throw the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention at Bond. Bond subsequently pleaded guilty in federal court and got a six-year sentence and nearly $12,000 in fines and restitution. The use of this federal treaty on chemical weapons, however, was a bit much, so Bond's lawyers appealed by arguing that using the federal government's Chemical Weapons Convention against Bond is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.") On appeal, the 3rd Circuit then ruled that Bond lacked standing to challenge her conviction, finding that only states, not individuals, can bring challenges under the Tenth Amendment. With this constitutional question in the balance, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case and heard it last January. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement represented Bond at the Supreme Court hearing. Clement argued that "the structural provisions of the Constitution are there to protect the liberty of citizens." He articulated that states have the authority to resolve their own criminal justice cases -- some international treaty on chemical weapons shouldn't preclude this state right. Which gets us back to Justice Kennedy and his tell on how he might rule on ObamaCare. Justice Kennedy said at the hearing: "The whole point of separation of powers, the whole point of federalism, is that it inheres to the individual and his or her right to liberty; and if that is infringed by a criminal conviction or in any other way that causes specific injury, why can't it be raised?" This made court watchers wonder if this might forecast how Justice Kennedy might vote on ObamaCare. Then, on June 16, the Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Bond that the U.S. Congress overstepped its authority by infringing on powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. (Bond, however, will have to make and win the Tenth Amendment argument in a lower court, as the Supreme Court only sent the case back down to the lower court while saying that Bond can fight her conviction on Tenth Amendment grounds.) So here's where it gets interesting for those wondering how the Court will vote on ObamaCare. The Obama Administration's argument is that it can mandate that people buy government-approved health insurance under the power the Constitution's Commerce Clause (The U.S. Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes....") gives the federal government. The Commerce Clause has been viewed to be an expansive power by the Supreme Court; for example, the Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that the federal government can even regulate whether a farmer can grow wheat for his chickens. But the Court has never found that the government can mandate that citizens actively do something, such as purchase a product. This is why Justice Kennedy's opinion expressed in U.S. v. Bond is interesting, as it indicates his preference for state rights under the Tenth Amendment. For example, in his opinion on U.S. v. Bond, Kennedy quoted the Supreme Court case New York v. U.S. (1992): "Federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." And then Justice Kennedy said, "[Federalism] protects the liberty of all persons within a state by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions.... By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake. The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states." So in U.S. v. Bond Justice Kennedy found that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority. Let's hope he'll do the same when Obamacare makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
For what it is worth, here is a interesting opinion on the outcome of a possible SC resolution by John Vecchione on FrumForum. The Sixth Circuit is a conservative, Republican-dominated circuit court. The administration has a right to crow about this opinion but it is not a home-run. The Supreme Court is not likely to buy the taxing arguments, the standing arguments, or any of the other lawyerly dodges of the main question. This case, when appealed, will stand or fall on whether commerce power extends so far. I believe Obamacare will be upheld. Since I believe Democratic appointees will never strike down Congress’s power to seize, direct, and confiscate private wealth on any pretext, then it has four votes in Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and (if not recused) Kagan. Scalia and Thomas are the only reasonable votes against the individual mandate, with Kennedy a possibility. Justices Roberts and Alito are what I call “big government” or Hamiltonian conservatives. Their lives have been dedicated to the vindication of federal power. Justice Roberts was a Rehnquist clerk and succeeded him, and there may be some residual pull to vindicate the enumerated powers view of the Constitution. However, that is a thin hope. Republican justices and nominees have shown a divergence of Constitutional views. Democratic justices will not. The plaintiffs must pull an inside straight to get five. The government needs only a pair of deuces. The proper course is for Republicans to repeal this bill before the Court can rule and make legal a breadth of federal power never before seen. Clip source: www.frumforum.com/obamaca...s-the-sixth-circuit-court
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Right now I think it's a tossup as to which way the court rules, hopefully the right way but you never know..... As far as repeal goes, a lot of Senate seats are going to have to change hands for that to happen, 13 if I remember right...... That's a lot..... and that means a lot of pissed of electorate having to give the Democrats the one finger salute, or "May the bird of paradise fly up your nose".... will that happen??? who knows....
"I love the 45 caliber M1911, I respect the 9MM M9 Beretta but I only carry a CZ for my own personal protection". Quote courtesy of Lt Col John Dean Cooper, recognized as the Father of Modern Handgunning
But it affirmed a Michigan federal judge's earlier ruling that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#2. To: Brian S (#0)
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
#4. To: BorisY (#3)
#5. To: BorisY (#3)
#6. To: mininggold (#5)
#7. To: Brian S (#0)
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati has upheld President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
#8. To: CZ82 (#7)
when Obamacare makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
#9. To: Brian S (#8)
The plaintiffs must pull an inside straight to get five. The government needs only a pair of deuces. The proper course is for Republicans to repeal this bill before the Court can rule and make legal a breadth of federal power never before seen.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]