Custom Search

Monday, December 13, 2010

Obama's health care plan unconstitutional

30 Comments:

Anonymous Judge Dredd said...

The mandate for people to buy insurance "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," the judge said.

11:43 PM  
Anonymous OBOMA IS OUT TO LUNCH said...

"Obama's health care plan unconstitutional"
.
OBOMA GIVES OUR COUNTRIES MONEY AWAY AND WE ARE BROKE.
.
OBOMA THIS AND OBOMA THAT, WHO THE HELL VOTED FOR THIS IDEOT.

5:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two things here to remember and reasons why this will go to the Supreme Court:

1. If there is one thing this group knows, is conflict of interest on the bench right? Well according to the conservative judicial watch website http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/hudson-henry-e This judge has $50,000 investment holdings in a Republican political consulting firm that battled against health care. I know most of you agree with this ruling and could care less but, it doesn't change the fact that this judge should have refused to hear this case.

2. Since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, opponents have filed at least 20 separate suits against the legislation. Federal judges have dismissed 14 of these challenges, and at least two separate federal judges disagreed with Hudson’s interpretation and questioned the merit of the plaintiffs’ claim that compelling individuals to purchase insurance fell outside the purview of the Commerce Clause. As Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan put it in October, forgoing insurance and putting off needed care only increases the costs of coverage and raises everyone’s premiums.

Hudson was a Bush appointee and the two other judges were Clinton appointees. This will be bumped up the 4th Cir. Appeals in Virginia where the appointees are Clintons. The Supreme Court will hear this in a year or two.


Eric

9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:54
"Obama" has not given anything away. The Chinese bought our debt under Bush while you were hiding under the table from "Islamist Facists". He also allowed financial incentives for companies to outsource and now we have no jobs and a lot of debt to China.

You'll remember that it was in the Fall of 2008 when then President Bush came to the country and begged us for almost a trillion dollars or we were going to be in a economic collapse worse than the depression. In actuality, it was just enough to for him to get out of office.

As far as who voted for this 'idiot' (you calling anyone an idiot after that post is pure irony), more people that voted for the last three presidents.


Eric

9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happened to my post on the topic?!?

So, if I do research and post it and it goes against the narrative, its deleted. But, we throw insults and digs, it stands?

Eric

9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sad Bob,

Deleting Eric's post.

As he said. It is being widely reported that this is a Republican Acivist Judge that still owns a ton of stock in a Republican political consulting firm that the AG from Virginia cherry picked to get the case in front of...

The ruling is meaningless, since that part of the act doesn't go into effect until 2014 and it will move up the court chain before then.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two things here to remember and reasons why this will go to the Supreme Court:

1. If there is one thing this group knows, is conflict of interest on the bench right? Well according to the conservative judicial watch website http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/hudson-henry-e This judge has $50,000 investment holdings in a Republican political consulting firm that battled against health care. I know most of you agree with this ruling and could care less but, it doesn't change the fact that this judge should have refused to hear this case.

2. Since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, opponents have filed at least 20 separate suits against the legislation. Federal judges have dismissed 14 of these challenges, and at least two separate federal judges disagreed with Hudson’s interpretation and questioned the merit of the plaintiffs’ claim that compelling individuals to purchase insurance fell outside the purview of the Commerce Clause. As Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan put it in October, forgoing insurance and putting off needed care only increases the costs of coverage and raises everyone’s premiums.

Hudson was a Bush appointee and the two other judges were Clinton appointees. This will be bumped up the 4th Cir. Appeals in Virginia where the appointees are Clintons. The Supreme Court will hear this in a year or two.


Eric

6:20 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Eric, I did not delete any comments on this topic.
I haven't been home since 12:00.

Lately from time to time I have had technical difficulties myself posting comments.

Before you hit publish, copy your work and check the blog to make sure it was published.

I checked my mailer and as you can see I found the comment and I posted it for you.

I do appreciate your efforts Eric.

6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would argue that the Federal Government has not the power nor do the states, to "force" it's citizens to pay for any product, including insurance, which is indeed a product that can be regulated by Congress within the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The Constitution only provides that where citizens monies are concerned, that income taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes, can be collected. See the 16th Ammendment.

Is your estate a product ? Is your income a product ?

Does the Government tell you what clothes to buy then force everyone else to buy the same clothes ? No.

But, this is what Obama thinks he can do with this health care is force it down your throat and fine all who will not pay.

The Government is using the example of states being able to force you to buy car insurance.

But, if you don't buy it, you simply cannot operate an automobile in Minnesota but you cannot be fined and I want to know why that is ?

So then, how can the Federal Government resort to fining citizens for not signing up ?

I see no Constitutional authority here either . If Federal health care is a mandate then wouldn't refusal to sign up be a Federal offence and then those who were punished would have a felony on their record ?

Maybe I am a person who believes in faith healing and I should be exempt ?

The State of Minnesota requires auto insurance if you choose to drive but the state never says in it's statutes that everyone will pay the same rate and as a matter of fact, our legislature permits the industry to discriminate from one driver to the next where rates are concerned.

I predict that the Supreme Court will find that the Federal Government has a right to create a National health Care system but that the Constitution gives no Congressional authority to require all citizens to have it. They Court will say also that assesing a fine is unconstitutional.

Obama's plan is littered with fault not only legally but economically and morally.



Jeff Matiatos

6:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two things here to remember and reasons why this will go to the Supreme Court:

1. If there is one thing this group knows, is conflict of interest on the bench right? Well according to the conservative judicial watch website http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/hudson-henry-e This judge has $50,000 investment holdings in a Republican political consulting firm that battled against health care. I know most of you agree with this ruling and could care less but, it doesn't change the fact that this judge should have refused to hear this case.

2. Since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, opponents have filed at least 20 separate suits against the legislation. Federal judges have dismissed 14 of these challenges, and at least two separate federal judges disagreed with Hudson’s interpretation and questioned the merit of the plaintiffs’ claim that compelling individuals to purchase insurance fell outside the purview of the Commerce Clause. As Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan put it in October, forgoing insurance and putting off needed care only increases the costs of coverage and raises everyone’s premiums.

Hudson was a Bush appointee and the two other judges were Clinton appointees. This will be bumped up the 4th Cir. Appeals in Virginia where the appointees are Clintons. The Supreme Court will hear this in a year or two.


Eric

7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two things here to remember and reasons why this will go to the Supreme Court:

1. If there is one thing this group knows, is conflict of interest on the bench right? Well according to the conservative judicial watch website http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/hudson-henry-e This judge has $50,000 investment holdings in a Republican political consulting firm that battled against health care. I know most of you agree with this ruling and could care less but, it doesn't change the fact that this judge should have refused to hear this case.

2. Since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, opponents have filed at least 20 separate suits against the legislation. Federal judges have dismissed 14 of these challenges, and at least two separate federal judges disagreed with Hudson’s interpretation and questioned the merit of the plaintiffs’ claim that compelling individuals to purchase insurance fell outside the purview of the Commerce Clause. As Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan put it in October, forgoing insurance and putting off needed care only increases the costs of coverage and raises everyone’s premiums.

Hudson was a Bush appointee and the two other judges were Clinton appointees. This will be bumped up the 4th Cir. Appeals in Virginia where the appointees are Clintons. The Supreme Court will hear this in a year or two.


Eric

7:44 PM  
Anonymous Eric said...

Two things here to remember and reasons why this will go to the Supreme Court:

1. If there is one thing this group knows, is conflict of interest on the bench right? Well according to the conservative judicial watch website http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/hudson-henry-e This judge has $50,000 investment holdings in a Republican political consulting firm that battled against health care. I know most of you agree with this ruling and could care less but, it doesn't change the fact that this judge should have refused to hear this case.

2. Since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, opponents have filed at least 20 separate suits against the legislation. Federal judges have dismissed 14 of these challenges, and at least two separate federal judges disagreed with Hudson’s interpretation and questioned the merit of the plaintiffs’ claim that compelling individuals to purchase insurance fell outside the purview of the Commerce Clause. As Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan put it in October, forgoing insurance and putting off needed care only increases the costs of coverage and raises everyone’s premiums.

Hudson was a Bush appointee and the two other judges were Clinton appointees. This will be bumped up the 4th Cir. Appeals in Virginia where the appointees are Clintons. The Supreme Court will hear this in a year or two.


Eric

7:45 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I POSTED THIS 4 TIMES NOW! Twice anonymously, name/url and now with my name. I HOPE THIS ONE GOES UP. The comment appears and disappears.

Eric's comment--->

Two things here to remember and reasons why this will go to the Supreme Court:

1. If there is one thing this group knows, is conflict of interest on the bench right? Well according to the conservative judicial watch website http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/hudson-henry-e This judge has $50,000 investment holdings in a Republican political consulting firm that battled against health care. I know most of you agree with this ruling and could care less but, it doesn't change the fact that this judge should have refused to hear this case.

2. Since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, opponents have filed at least 20 separate suits against the legislation. Federal judges have dismissed 14 of these challenges, and at least two separate federal judges disagreed with Hudson’s interpretation and questioned the merit of the plaintiffs’ claim that compelling individuals to purchase insurance fell outside the purview of the Commerce Clause. As Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan put it in October, forgoing insurance and putting off needed care only increases the costs of coverage and raises everyone’s premiums.

Hudson was a Bush appointee and the two other judges were Clinton appointees. This will be bumped up the 4th Cir. Appeals in Virginia where the appointees are Clintons. The Supreme Court will hear this in a year or two.


Eric

7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether you want to believe that the partisan politics in the judiciary will ultimatley decide this issue or the Republicans will repeal this legislation is anyones guess how it will turn out but I think the Supreme Court will decide how i explained in my previous post.

What is clear is that we have a signifigant number of states that oppose the legislation and a battery of attorney generals from those states united in briefing the Courts as to the invalidity of the legislation based on the absence of constitutional authority
for this legislation to become law.

Even if the Supreme Court sides with the feds, who is to say that the republicans wouldn't reapeal it on the grounds that the legislation is to expensive ?

Most likey that would be the second best course of action.






Jeff Matiatos

8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe then there should be a Federal law that requires all persons with a valid drivers license in the United States to have auto insurance ?

States like Wisconsin can say you don't have to have it ?

First, according to one definition, commerce means the buying and selling of goods on a large scale as between cities and nations.

The Constitution says :

" To regulate commerce with foriegn nations, and among the several states and with the indian tribes " .

Someone tell me whether they think the commerce clause was intended by the founding fathers to require that individuals can be forced to pay for anything in the context of the above quote ?

I think one of the Governments concerns is that health insurance companys are discriminating and this is true. This is why Minnesota has a, you guessed it, Department of Commerce.

So, why then do we need to have the Federal Government force all to have universal insurance if we already have a protective agency monitering the industry ?

This is just one truth that dismisses the Governments rational that by having this legislation, it will eliminate discrimination against those with pre-existing health issues.

The solution is to pass stricter insurance regulation laws within the confines of each individual state but this is a slow moving task and no dougbt state and local politiciuans are being payed off to vote down any proposals to reform.

I think that Obamas 630 billion plus price tag is to expensive also.





Jeff Matiatos

8:45 PM  
Blogger Swiftee said...

Chuck is right; this ruling is meaningless.

Next year, Congress will defund BammyCare and in 2012, Peebo's GOP successor will stick a fork in it.

Considering the stinking pile of meaningless shit BammyCare is, no one will miss it. Not even the moonbat kooks that feel compelled to defend it now.

History will remember BammyCare as the torn banner of a failed, one term President.

10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It won't be repealed.

As with all bills, an act to repeal a past law must be voted out of committee before reaching the House floor. Since Republicans will control the House, this would not be difficult as all House committee chairs would be Republicans. A simple majority vote would send the measure to the Senate. The Democratic Majority Senate, which took forever to decide on a bill before passing it. Its not very bloody likely that they will decide to shit-can their own law. But even if the repeal bill passed in the Senate in some Unicorn world, it will still require President Obama's signature.

So get real. This talk about repeal is all about getting donations from the idiots and keeping the small minds busy, while the health industry continues bend you over the table.

Like the abortion talk. For six years Republicans had the White House, Congress and a conservative court. What did they do about abortion? Raise a boatload of money off of it, give the whole pro-life thing a lot of lip service but, did nothing to go after Roe v Wade. Oh, and in 2004 when abortion and terrorism wasn't enough, they brought in gay marriage. Some how John Kerry was going to make gay marriage the law of the land so you needed to come out and vote against it.

They know damn well there is no chance that they will repeal the Health Care law, they're banking on you not knowing that.


Eric

12:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two points:

1. Jeff, health insurance or government paid is the way that better than 95% of the population in the country get their medical bills paid. They either have insurance, don't pay the bill and the rest of us pay in higher premiums or the government picks up the tab by covering someone or by paying county facilities (using Federal dollars) to provide coverage.

So, virtually the entire health industry is either covered by insurance or one level of the government or another. And, the Federal Government has become a part of the industry by paying part of the "several states" portion of the tab.

If the "Several States" don't pay for the poor, than hospitals raise rates and insurance companies raise premiums.

So, the commerce clause: To regulate commerce... among the several states... ", would seem to apply.

2. Swiftee - though the GOP are screaming now, never forget that the portion that is being challenge is not a DEM idea, but was actually first proposed by the GOP in 1992. This language of forcing coverage was originally the Republican alternative to Hillary care in 92. This is the Hatch-Grasserly bill.

The GOP gets tons of money from the health insurance industry and this will only increase their profits. They ain't changing anything.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:15 AM  
Blogger Swiftee said...

Chuck, I'm aware of the ties between the insurance industry and the GOP, but the landscape has changed.

Next year, 1/3 of the House will be represented by people that bucked the GOP, either directly by beating the GOP endorsed candidate, or by hitching their wagons to the Tea Party.

I'm not stupid enough to believe that every single one of them will do what they said they would, but the momentum does not lie in Congress these days, it is found in Town hall meetings filled to the rafters with people that are pissed as hell.

Congress crosses the Tea Party at their own peril...just ask any stinking Democrat.

Eric, reread my comment. I specifically noted that the law has no chance to be repealed before the next Prez election.

Comprehension is your friend.

However Congress does have the ability to de-fund Obama's Folly, and they know we are expecting them to do it.

3:18 PM  
Anonymous Bill Dahn said...

Oboma as President is "unconstitutional" because He is not a Real American or is He?

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swiftee - I count one liberal Democrat that lost to a Tea Party advocate. Russ F in Wisc.

Other than that they ate up moderate and conservative Democrats who claimed to be Tea Party lite.

The Tea Party was just a con-job of the classic social conservative GOP playing cut the debt. They are all voting for the big Tax cut for their wealthy owners.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, Ron Johnson who beat Russ Feingold in Wisconsin is a great example of the con. He was a wealthy businessman funding efforts in Wisconsin that benefit his bottom line but had little for the actually regular joe, whom the tea party represents to an extent.

He became a wealthy businessman that old fashioned way, he married into a wealthy family and used the family name, money and certain family members (for access)to start his 'own' business. What this guy has in common with some of the tea party complaints and everyday realities I have no idea.

Eric

11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill Dahn said...
Oboma as President is "unconstitutional" because He is not a Real American or is He?
10:22 PM
=====

Only someone with your limited cognitive skills can believe that. Hawaii was a state in 1960 when he was born. He also has a mother who was born in Kansas so he's got the whole natural born American thing wrapped up.

Besides, if you really got a problem with it, talk the conservative Chief Justice of United States Supreme Court, John Roberts. He swore him in and should be impeached if he did so fraudulently.

Get a life or a job Bill.


Eric

11:25 PM  
Anonymous Bill Dahn said...

Eric Said 11:19 PM

That's what the Democrats claim, to be for the average Joe.
But they always turn their backs on people with complaints on some "org" that is unlawful in their practice against the common folks.
WE THE PEOPLE OF UNITED STATE!
I Do more every day for the people then You or Chuck would ever do.
Those two would suck up anybody to get a head or let people die from being poison like the Sholom Nursing Home having pocket of gasoline under the ground that the fumes are raising thru the building and the vapor barrier under the building is not enough or they would not have to have fans in the basement to get rid of any that get by the barrier.
YOU and Chuck must not care for the Jewish People that just had strokes that can't speak, they can't say that the smells bothers them.
They develop "MCS" >> Multiple Chemical Sensitivity look it up !
I Contacted Leslie Davis, He has been a freedom fighter for all the people and He is Jewish and now St.Paul asses are on the line.
So You and Your Comrades that run Minnesota's DFL aka DUMB FUCKIN LIARS PARTY !
Chuck and Eric kemp referring that Bill Dahn is not to smart and he dose nothing all day except bitch, by this two LIARS push their Shit back up the asses of people that believe what some two face half breed like Eric say is true.
I Drive a Large refer truck daily for a Christian Food Shelf picking up food so we can feed the people that are needy and I am smarter then they must think, I am pointing the finger at Second Harvest Food Bank for RACATEERING and this can be clarified by contacting the A G Office, and some of the TV News.
We have many people involved in this with me, I started the action with the Brain the lord has given me, one person "Bill Dahn" has shown Minnesota that Don't ever fuck this half bread.
Did we hear the word RACATEERING in St.Paul's Government ?
St.Paul's Slimy Government keeps covering each other asses, and like I said about "DFL" Norm Coleman that "HE DIDN"T GET THAT PART IN HIS TEETH FROM SUCKING BANANAS", oops Who was HE Sucking ?
I a disabled German - Indian born and raised in St.Paul cares for the people and NOT LIKE Chuck and Eric a couple of GREEDY BASTERDS.
If you two don't like what I am saying about liars that try to control the thoughts of the people with slanderous ways that feel their are superior to us the people.
Does any one feel that the Democratic Party are just "GREEDY" DFL "DUMB FUCKEN LIARS"?
Please comment about them.

PS. I help the needy and Eric and Chuck helps the greedy!

7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kick them wimps in the balls, then watch their little ball grow as big as their haed

7:38 AM  
Anonymous Bill Dahn said...

Eric Said 11:19 PM

That's what the Democrats claim, to be for the average Joe.
But they always turn their backs on people with complaints on some "org" that is unlawful in their practice against the common folks.

WE THE PEOPLE OF UNITED STATE!

I Do more every day for the people then You or Chuck would ever do.
Those two would suck up to anybody to get a head or let people die from being poison like the Sholom Nursing Home having pocket of gasoline under the ground that the fumes are raising thru the building and the vapor barrier under the building is not enough or they would not have to have fans in the basement to get rid of any that get by the barrier.

YOU and Chuck must not care for the Jewish People that just had strokes that can't speak, they can't say that the smells bothers them.

They develop "MCS" >> Multiple Chemical Sensitivity look it up !

I Contacted Leslie Davis, He has been a freedom fighter for all the people and He is Jewish and now St.Paul asses are on the line.

So You and Your Comrades that run Minnesota's DFL aka DUMB FUCKIN LIARS PARTY !

Chuck and Eric kemp referring that Bill Dahn is not to smart and he dose nothing all day except bitch,
by this two LIARS push their Shit back up the asses of people that believe what some two face half breed like Eric say is true.

I Drive a Large refer truck daily for a Christian Food Shelf picking up food so we can feed the people that are needy and I am smarter then they must think, I am pointing the finger at Second Harvest Food Bank for RACATEERING and this can be clarified by contacting the A G Office, and some of the TV News.

We have many people involved in this with me, I started the action with the Brain the lord has given me, one person "Bill Dahn" has shown Minnesota that Don't ever fuck this half bread.

Did we hear the word RACATEERING in St.Paul's Government ?

St.Paul's Slimy Government keeps covering each other asses, and like I said about
"DFL" Norm Coleman that
"HE DIDN"T GET THAT PART IN HIS TEETH FROM SUCKING BANANAS",
oops Who was HE Sucking ?

I a disabled German - Indian born and raised in St.Paul and I cares for the people and NOT LIKE Chuck and Eric a couple of GREEDY BASTERDS.

If you two don't like what I am saying about liars that try to control the thoughts of the people with slanderous ways that feel they are superior to us the people.

Does any one feel that the Democratic Party are just "GREEDY" DFL "DUMB FUCKEN LIARS"?
Please comment about them.

PS. I help the needy and Eric and Chuck helps the greedy!


I posted this and it went down,
so here it is again

7:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric,

Agreed, my point was that Russ was the only liberal that lost.

I think every other Dem that lost to a Tea Party candidate was either pro-life, pro-gun, or pro-tax cuts for the rich.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get a life or a job Bill.
OK KINGFISH.

8:37 PM  
Anonymous Bill Dahn said...

Hello Eric and Chuck
The two of you have a thing about what my job is, its exposing government greed corruption.
Some may call that snitching, whistle blowing, but I call it being a freedom fighting Watch Dog for our country aka a "patriot".
Paul Revere was known as a freedom fighting patriot, revolutionist.

12:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill, A disabled person Answered your Stupid Question, now you 2 look worst.

8:25 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home