Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 1/5/2012 3:11:23 PM EDT
Time for something relatively positive.







The Obama administration is headed into a Supreme Court case over
healthcare reform without a clear answer to significant questions about
Congress’s power.



The Justice Department will file its first
brief on the merits of the case Friday — the beginning of a long process
that will almost surely culminate in a ruling this summer. The first
briefs will focus on the core question of whether it is constitutional
to make almost every American buy health insurance.



The Obama
administration has a winning record on that point in federal appeals
courts. But even in the cases it has won, the administration has failed
to answer a key question: If Congress has the power to enforce the
insurance mandate, where does that power stop?














           

   





It’s known in legal jargon as a "limiting principle.” When courts
evaluate a new application of Congress’s constitutional authority, they
have historically wanted to see clear limits to those powers.



"The
DOJ has to do a better job of answering, ‘What goes beyond your theory
of federal power?' " said Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the
libertarian Cato Institute who opposes the insurance mandate. "They’ve
been asked this in every court and they’ve never satisfied the court,
even in the cases they’ve won.”



The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
— the specific case now before the Supreme Court — struck down the
insurance mandate partially on the grounds that upholding it would open
the door to a flood of regulation.



"Ultimately, the government’s
struggle to articulate … limiting principles only reiterates the
conclusion we reach today: There are none,” the court said in its
ruling.





http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/202573-lawyers-courts-see-weaknesses-in-defense-of-obamas-healthcare-law



Found via Reason.com's blog.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:12:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Repeal that shit and kick the asshole out of the white house.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:26:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Repeal that shit and kick the asshole out of the white house.


first post and all.......
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:27:24 PM EDT
[#3]
I have hopes of parts at least being struck down.



If not, it is the final nail in our socialist coffin.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:34:36 PM EDT
[#4]


A weak replublic, perpetuated by an equally weak spine allows this to occur.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:35:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Repeal that shit and kick the asshole out of the white house.


Never gonna happen.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:35:35 PM EDT
[#6]
if the individual mandate is struck down ( more than likely ) the rest will cave in on itself as it wont be enforceable.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:37:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Kagan was appointed to the Supreme Court for just such a battle.  Didn't you see this coming.  She was drafting arguments before she
was even confirmed.

Kagan Article

Internal Justice Department email communications made just days before the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
show that then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan was brought into the loop as DOJ began preparing to respond to an anticipated legal complaint that Mark Levin and the
Landmark Legal Foundation were planning to file against the act if the House used a procedural rule to “deem” the bill passed even if members never directly voted on it.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:48:13 PM EDT
[#8]



Quoted:



Quoted:

Repeal that shit and kick the asshole out of the white house.




Never gonna happen.


Nope.



 
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 3:36:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Repeal that shit and kick the asshole out of the white house.


first post and all.......


Everything everybody above says.  
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 3:45:54 PM EDT
[#10]
We'll see, I guess....
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 3:47:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
if the individual mandate is struck down ( more than likely ) the rest will cave in on itself as it wont be enforceable.

I very much hope you are correct.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 3:51:10 PM EDT
[#12]
The court reaffirmed an extremely permissive interpretation of the commerce clause only a few years ago.    They would pretty much have to reverse that, at least in part, to overturn the individual mandate to buy health insurance.
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 3:57:09 PM EDT
[#13]



Quoted:




The court reaffirmed an extremely permissive interpretation of the commerce clause only a few years ago.



Raich versus Gonzales.



It's worth it, though, if we can make dopers cry.
 
Link Posted: 1/6/2012 3:59:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
I have hopes of parts at least being struck down.

If not, it is the final nail in our socialist coffin.


I will bet the funding mandate will be overturned. If not we (the US) are done for.  

Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top