Supreme Court and the Individual Health Insurance Mandate

[CARLHAYDEN]

As I posted earlier in another thread, the government's commerce clause argument is stupid, and thus doomed to fail. 

I've read through the taxing clause argument too, and I think the weight of precedent is pretty strongly on the side of it not being a tax.  Doesn't mean that can't change.

Which leaves the necessary and proper clause.  Which I think stands a reasonable shot.  Arguing it, though, probably means you're saying health care law is void if you're wrong.

Anyway, this decision today (as opposed to the VA one) will push it up to the SC quite quickly.

"Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land."

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

[CARLHAYDEN]

If it is upheld, it will have to be as an exercise of the taxing power. While I expect the Supreme Court would find that health insurance is Interstate Commerce (Indeed when it comes to how the Court views the Commerce Clause, the word Interstate has effectively been rendered irrelevant), I can't see any power under the Commerce Clause that could be used to compel people to engage in Commerce if they don't want to.

A pretty good analysis.

However, what is most interesting is that the bill does NOT include a 'severability' clause!

Update!

Lawrence O’Donnell asked constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley Tuesday if the Democrats made a mistake not including a severability clause into the Obamacare law. Part of Turley’s response:

TURLEY: Well, first of all, it was a colossal mistake not to have a severability clause in this legislation. It’s a standard clause in bills.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/02/lawrence-odonnell-democrats-made-huge-mistake-not-writing-severabilit#ixzz1CsNjvS80

[t_host1]

 The way I understand it, the latest point of order by the judge who ruled "unconstitutional", the entire act, the fed has 7 days to appeal his decision, if the fed does not, the 26 states who filed, are free from all requirements imposed by the new & improved health bill of 2010.

sovereigndeeds.com   
it's our move

[t_host1]

  God has forbidden the 26 filing states freedom. He filed an appeal, yesterday. As the VP said, ‘this is a big f**k’en deal… that is “Houston we got a problem”. In the end, the 2010 health-care law will collapse, freedom will never be buried. Article II, of the Sovereign Deeds Act is the only solution for the liberty of ones health here in the USA.

  Related RTR: as of 3.8.11, the governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe (D)  has in his possession an 8 page document from Washington, an Obama sign-off, Secretary Sebelius go, that he, Gov. Beebe subvert all constitutional legislative means and implement at once “episode of care” policies. The discussions live at the capital, Little Rock, with state Senators and Rep’s, completely blind sides there positions because the widow for legislative action, bills introduce, has just closed.  The just of “episode of care” is a fixed dollar amount for each prognosis. As always more questions of problems rather than resolve have arisen.   

aside ?  When Obama killed the horizon, who's, future did he win?

[Badger]

  God has forbidden the 26 filing states freedom. He filed an appeal, yesterday. As the VP said, ‘this is a big f**k’en deal… that is “Houston we got a problem”. In the end, the 2010 health-care law will collapse, freedom will never be buried. Article II, of the Sovereign Deeds Act is the only solution for the liberty of ones health here in the USA.

  Related RTR: as of 3.8.11, the governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe (D)  has in his possession an 8 page document from Washington, an Obama sign-off, Secretary Sebelius go, that he, Gov. Beebe subvert all constitutional legislative means and implement at once “episode of care” policies. The discussions live at the capital, Little Rock, with state Senators and Rep’s, completely blind sides there positions because the widow for legislative action, bills introduce, has just closed.  The just of “episode of care” is a fixed dollar amount for each prognosis. As always more questions of problems rather than resolve have arisen.   

aside ?  When Obama killed the horizon, who's, future did he win?

Shouldn't you be concentrating on your defense in the Giffords shooting rather than posting online from your cell?

[t_host1]

 God has forbidden the 26 filing states freedom. He filed an appeal, yesterday. As the VP said, ‘this is a big f**k’en deal… that is “Houston we got a problem”. In the end, the 2010 health-care law will collapse, freedom will never be buried. Article II, of the Sovereign Deeds Act is the only solution for the liberty of ones health here in the USA.

  Related RTR: as of 3.8.11, the governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe (D)  has in his possession an 8 page document from Washington, an Obama sign-off, Secretary Sebelius go, that he, Gov. Beebe subvert all constitutional legislative means and implement at once “episode of care” policies. The discussions live at the capital, Little Rock, with state Senators and Rep’s, completely blind sides there positions because the widow for legislative action, bills introduce, has just closed.  The just of “episode of care” is a fixed dollar amount for each prognosis. As always more questions of problems rather than resolve have arisen.    

aside ?  When Obama killed the horizon, who's, future did he win?

Shouldn't you be concentrating on your defense in the Giffords shooting rather than posting online from your cell?

Thank you for the reminder, it has been bugging me for awhile... How come there is going to be a trial?! Where in the hell was the cover!!! Arizona is an open carry state! da** it!

Oh' and you're right, all prison budgets for computers & internet will be eliminated, at once..
thank you

[Badger]

 God has forbidden the 26 filing states freedom. He filed an appeal, yesterday. As the VP said, ‘this is a big f**k’en deal… that is “Houston we got a problem”. In the end, the 2010 health-care law will collapse, freedom will never be buried. Article II, of the Sovereign Deeds Act is the only solution for the liberty of ones health here in the USA.

  Related RTR: as of 3.8.11, the governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe (D)  has in his possession an 8 page document from Washington, an Obama sign-off, Secretary Sebelius go, that he, Gov. Beebe subvert all constitutional legislative means and implement at once “episode of care” policies. The discussions live at the capital, Little Rock, with state Senators and Rep’s, completely blind sides there positions because the widow for legislative action, bills introduce, has just closed.  The just of “episode of care” is a fixed dollar amount for each prognosis. As always more questions of problems rather than resolve have arisen.    

aside ?  When Obama killed the horizon, who's, future did he win?

Shouldn't you be concentrating on your defense in the Giffords shooting rather than posting online from your cell?

Thank you for the reminder, it has been bugging me for awhile... How come there is going to be a trial?! Where in the hell was the cover!!! Arizona is an open carry state! da** it!

Oh' and you're right, all prison budgets for computers & internet will be eliminated, at once..
thank you

Ok, I'll give you kudos on a good natured, and pretty funny, response there.

[t_host1]

  God has forbidden the 26 filing states freedom. He filed an appeal, yesterday. As the VP said, ‘this is a big f**k’en deal… that is “Houston we got a problem”. In the end, the 2010 health-care law will collapse, freedom will never be buried. Article II, of the Sovereign Deeds Act is the only solution for the liberty of ones health here in the USA.

  Related RTR: as of 3.8.11, the governor of Arkansas, Mike Beebe (D)  has in his possession an 8 page document from Washington, an Obama sign-off, Secretary Sebelius go, that he, Gov. Beebe subvert all constitutional legislative means and implement at once “episode of care” policies. The discussions live at the capital, Little Rock, with state Senators and Rep’s, completely blind sides there positions because the widow for legislative action, bills introduce, has just closed.  The just of “episode of care” is a fixed dollar amount for each prognosis. As always more questions of problems rather than resolve have arisen.   

aside ?  When Obama killed the horizon, who's, future did he win?

  I haven't heard if a check was included with the Obama/Sebelius directive but, if it did, does the gov. get to keep it with a nice try/pat on the back or does Obama want his money back?

 Ar. Leg. just could not find a place in the budget to implement.

so, for now, Arkansas survives health-care reform while

a couple use the

[t_host1]

Nope, the Supreme Court say's simply, 'you figure it out - we go'n on vacation'.

 It's actually a good thing that they do not fast track this. States that try to implement will find it compared to having sowed poizen oak.

 It's just my humble opinion, standing on the side of the street mining my own business, of coarse.

It's best that this issue be settled in the trenches of the budgets and the election.

[TheGlobalizer]

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201111021.pdf

Pretty epic opinion, and well-founded, IMO.

Some quotes:

"Even in the face of a Great Depression, a World War, a Cold War, recessions, oil shocks,
inflation, and unemployment, Congress never sought to require the purchase of
wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of
American goods, or require every American to purchase a more fuel efficient
vehicle."

"From a doctrinal standpoint, we see no way to cabin the
government’s theory only to decisions not to purchase health insurance. If an
individual’s mere decision not to purchase insurance were subject to Wickard’s
aggregation principle, we are unable to conceive of any product whose purchase
Congress could not mandate under this line of argument."

"Ultimately, the government’s struggle to articulate cognizable, judicially
administrable limiting principles only reiterates the conclusion we reach today:
there are none."

[t_host1]

 According to Big Wing Radio the opponents to the Obamacare beat the WH in a filing procedure, meaning that, that there is a better chance of getting on this years docket. This spring I guess would be their hearing - this is the one with the 28 states winning the mandate as unconstitutional, however, said the balance of the law is OK. Then there's the severability issue.

 The tactic I soppose is for SCOTUS to decided this, I'd prefer the electorate decide this issue of who controls life and the maintenance of it. If the Dem's win another term and SCOTUS refuses to accept or upholds the mandate as constitutional, then the state(s) that refuse the Fed law and SCOTUS will be the growth state(s) where the resistant (legal and civil) will began, the new era in this here USA.

 Which state could or get prepared to be cutoff from the fed, have self sustaining energy and capital needs, political and military strength to capture what is now known as the US Constitution? If none, then submission to the dark side is the future, the completed reversal of the powers to the Obama Islamic-Marx doctrine.

 

[Bacon King]

The timeline I've heard is that Supreme Court oral arguments will likely be in the spring, with a decision in the summer.

 According to Big Wing Radio the opponents to the Obamacare beat the WH in a filing procedure, meaning that, that there is a better chance of getting on this years docket. This spring I guess would be their hearing - this is the one with the 28 states winning the mandate as unconstitutional, however, said the balance of the law is OK. Then there's the severability issue.

 The tactic I soppose is for SCOTUS to decided this, I'd prefer the electorate decide this issue of who controls life and the maintenance of it. If the Dem's win another term and SCOTUS refuses to accept or upholds the mandate as constitutional, then the state(s) that refuse the Fed law and SCOTUS will be the growth state(s) where the resistant (legal and civil) will began, the new era in this here USA.

 Which state could or get prepared to be cutoff from the fed, have self sustaining energy and capital needs, political and military strength to capture what is now known as the US Constitution? If none, then submission to the dark side is the future, the completed reversal of the powers to the Obama Islamic-Marx doctrine.

Don't be silly. Obama isn't a Muslim or a Marxist, and while both parties have their issues neither one is "the dark side." And nobody is going to be committing treason over a health insurance mandate.

[Ogre Mage]

The Supreme Court has just decided to take the health care law case --

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/court-sets-5-12-hour-hearing-on-health-care/

[Jerseyrules]

Fully struck down, 5-4

[t_host1]

 If upheld, a counter measure I see developing. Like being required to be certified in the field of your expertise or licensed, bonded and insured in the various over the road, equipment use and legal type jobs, an individual seeking employment will be required prior to being employed, to be medically insured in order to fill their respective position. No different than some jobs requiring physicals or testing for substance abuse. 

[Frodo]

Hearings on the individual mandate are set to begin early next week.  Just a heads-up.  

And here's the schedule:

DATE OF HEARING
March 26

TIME ALLOTTED
90 minutes

40 min.
Robert A. Long, friend of the court, appointed to argue that the suit is barred.
30 min.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. says the challenges may go forward.
20 min.
Gregory G. Katsas, representing the National Federal of Independent Business and other private parties, agrees with the government on this point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE OF HEARING
March 27

TIME ALLOTTED
2 hours

60 min.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. defends the law.
30 min.
Paul D. Clement, representing 26 states, challenges the law.
30 min.
Michael A. Carvin, representing the private parties, challenges the law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE OF HEARING
March 28

TIME ALLOTTED
90 minutes

30 min.
Paul D. Clement, representing 26 states, argues that the entire law must fall.
30 min.
Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler argues that most of the law should survive, even if the mandate is struck down.
30 min.
H. Bartow Farr III, friend of the court, appointed to defend the ruling that struck down only the mandate.

TIME ALLOTTED
1 hour

30 min.
Paul D. Clement, representing 26 states, challenges the law.
30 min.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. defends the law.

[Frodo]

Let's suppose the Supreme Court not only rules against the individual mandate but also strikes down the rest of the provisions of the health care law that goes along with it -how will such a ruling impact President Obama's re-election campaign?

[True Federalist]

Let's suppose the Supreme Court not only rules against the individual mandate but also strikes down the rest of the provisions of the health care law that goes along with it -how will such a ruling impact President Obama's re-election campaign?

It helps but not much.  "Vote for us to repeal Obamacare" is a more potent political argument than "vote for us so you don't have to wait for the Supreme Court to kill the next Democratic power grab" but the GOP should be able to morph its message successfully.

What would hurt the most politically would be if the Court after having made it into a major case rules that the time is not yet ripe for a suit to go forward.  That makes tomorrow the most important set of hearings politically.

[Senator Snowstalker]

What precedent is there to repeal the entire law?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's suppose the Supreme Court not only rules against the individual mandate but also strikes down the rest of the provisions of the health care law that goes along with it -how will such a ruling impact President Obama's re-election campaign?

If it's a 5-4 ruling, it might help Obama to remind people how partisan the 5 Republicans on the court are. They gave us Citizens United. And while there have been some changes to the membership, they are essentially the same 5 who appointed Bush President.

[Frodo]

What precedent is there to repeal the entire law?

What precedent was there in the Citizens United vs. FEC decision?  Why should the lack of precedent stop this court?  It didn't stop them before.   

[Frodo]

Looks as if the justices are not going to punt on this issue:

Justices moving to heart of health care overhaul

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON —
As demonstrations swirled outside, Supreme Court justices signaled on Monday they are ready to confront without delay the keep-or-kill questions at the heart of challenges to President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul. Virtually every American will be affected by the outcome, due this summer in the heat of the election campaign.

On the first of three days of arguments - the longest in decades - none of the justices appeared to embrace the contention that it was too soon for a decision.

Outside the packed courtroom, marching and singing demonstrators on both sides - including doctors in white coats, a Republican presidential candidate and even a brass quartet - voiced their eagerness for the court to either uphold or throw out the largest expansion in the nation's social safety net since Medicare was enacted in 1965.

Tuesday's arguments will focus on the heart of the case, the provision that aims to extend medical insurance to 30 million more Americans by requiring everyone to carry insurance or pay a penalty.

A decision is expected by late June as Obama fights for re-election. All of his Republican challengers oppose the law and promise its repeal if the high court hasn't struck it down in the meantime.
-----------------------------------

And since I can't seem to get the audio to work, here is the transcript instead.  

[shua]

C-SPAN has audio here with pictures of the people who are talking.

[Frodo]

C-SPAN has audio here with pictures of the people who are talking.

Now why didn't I think of that?  I was looking at Oyez and they didn't have the audio yet of the hearings. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If they strike it down Obama should hit the court hard for being so blindingly partisan. Obviously packing the court isn't going to work, but he should definitely go after them for horrible rulings like Citizens United.