SCOTUS orders re-examination of Obamacare
November 28, 2012 at 1:11 pm in News, ObamaCare by Tea Party Patriots 42 Comments
This week, the Supreme Court has ordered the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to look at a specific objection to the President’s health care law. The objection, brought by Liberty University, was rejected last year. From Politico:
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to examine the constitutionality of the health care reform law’s employer requirements and mandatory coverage of contraceptives without a co-pay.
The move could open the door for President Barack Obama’s health law to be back in front of the Supreme Court late next year. But legal experts say there’s no guarantee that the justices would actually take the case — or that they’d strike down those pieces of the law if they did.
The article notes that the Obama Administration’s lawyers didn’t oppose the case moving forward, and Liberty’s case may or may not be significant in the long run. However, hope springs eternal, so Tea Party Patriots will keep an eye as this develops and report on what takes place.
The Supreme Court wants to remember who holds the purse strings to their budget
This is so simple, and idiot can figure it out. All anyone has to do is read the goddam Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
The “free exercise” in this case is the objection to contraceptives. It is obviously unconstitutional to require someone to violate their religious beliefs.
Let’s take it a step further. What is intended is for the individual cost of contraceptives to be absorbed by society, society being those who pay insurance premiums.
Should there be a medical reason for a person to require contraceptives, then, of course, this is a medical cost. But, if the only reason is to engage in leisure sex and avoid pregnancy, then this is obviously an individual responsibility.
And, let’s go a little further. According to the Constitution, only Congress can write legislation. The only law that can be forced on the people are laws that have passed the House of Representatives.
No court can change or edit any law.
To segment a law into parts that are constitutional and parts that are unconstitutional is an act by the court that is not allowed by the Cosntitution because the Constitution authorizes only Congress to write legislation.
The “law” is that body of text that was voted on in its entirety. If so much as one word or phrase or paragraph had not been included, then it is not constitutional for any court to make the assumption that the legislation would have passed and become law.
In short, the courts cannot write law.
So, if one word in the entire piece of legislation is unconstitutional, then the entire body of text passed with a single count of votes is unconstitutional.
… according to the Constitution, that is.
The Supreme Court has a history of insane rulings. Allowing legitimate agricultural crops to be seized because it MAY interfere with existing ILLEGAL interstate commerce; allowing an unelected municipal body to force the transfer of property from the owner to another private individual without any other justification other than the other private individual wants to use it differently than the legitimate owner; parsing the Constitution and making corporations equal to the individual in parts of the Constitution, but not all; and on, and on, and on.
Congress is just one of the branches of government we need to fix. Perhaps after we fix Congress, then Congress will do its job and ensure the Supreme Court actually uses the Constitution in their rulings.
“Penalty” and “tax” comes to mind, too, when insane Supreme Court rulings are mentioned.
My question is this… Isn’t religion simply the practice of ones’ faith? Assuming that’s accurate, wouldn’t that make the mandate to change the way you are practicing your faith an “establishment of religion”? Is this too simple a view? Curious to hear your thoughts.
To add to your post, the Supreme court does not have the right to try every case either. Here is what the Constitution has to say concerning the Supreme Court.
Article 3 section 2 paragraph 2.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Only in the cases that involve Ambassadors, public ministers and Consulates does the Supreme have the total authority to make rulings and only when a state is involved with the above parties does the Supreme Court have the authority to rule. But when it come to appeals, they are only allowed to rule when the Congress gives them the authority “under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
You see the American people forget that majority of the power of the Gov resides with the Congress. They are, after all the ones who wrote the constitution (Constitutional Congress). They set the the systems of Checks and balances in place but that does not mean that they do not posses most of the power. According to the Constitution, The house of Representatives set’s budgets and makes laws. The “Senate may propose or concurwith amendments as on other Bills” Congress set the terms on the Authority the President has. They set the terms of Jurisdiction the courts have. The Supreme Court does not have Supreme power to do anything they want. And even when they rule on a case, that does not necessarily mean that the President or the Congress must act on their ruling. There are several case where the Legislative branch and the Executive branch has ignored their rulings.
This is so simple, and idiot can figure it out. All anyone has to do is read the goddam Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
The “free exercise” in this case is the objection to contraceptives. It is obviously unconstitutional to require someone to violate their religious beliefs.
Let’s take it a step further. What is intended is for the individual cost of contraceptives to be absorbed by society, society being those who pay insurance premiums.
Should there be a medical reason for a person to require contraceptives, then, of course, this is a medical cost. But, if the only reason is to engage in leisure sex and avoid pregnancy, then this is obviously an individual responsibility.
DBWriter: it’s not mandating, it’s giving the option of contraception. It’s not against my religion and would want my children to be able to use this. Last I checked, Christianity wasn’t the law of the land although you teabaggers would love it to be. Such hypocrites.
Everyone already has the option of contraception. Name ANY person in the entire United States that has been denied contraception? You can’t. EVERYONE has the option of contraception already in this country. You do remember Roe versus Wade, don’t you? The core issue was about contraception.
What you really want is for someone else to pay for it.
No way. If you want to engage in sex, you can pay for everything you need yourself.
This corsses the line between epicureanism and hedonism. Democrats are no more than just another hedonist culture that has come into existence from time to time in the history of civilization. If you noticed, those cultures never survive.
There seems to be confusion with the birth control bebate. Birth control is not going away! It was never on the table and the idea of stopping it was never the issue. The issue is forcing EVERYONE to pay for it. If I CHOOSE to have sexual relations and want to provent pregnancy I can CHOOSE to take birth control. Without the law I pay for it because it is my CHOICE. With the law eveyone is FORCED to pay for it. How is this right or fair?
To look at it differently. Let say I have lung cancer or hypothyroidism and I have to take medication for it. Why is this not paid for by everyone. I did not choose to have these things yet i pay for them because it is the best thing for my health.
The logic does not make sense. Also the birth control coverage is not law. It is based on the administation of the health council. So if Obama wants it great but if Hillary doesnt than it goes. So its not a permanant thing.
And, let’s go a little further. According to the Constitution, only Congress can write legislation. The only law that can be forced on the people are laws that have passed the House of Representatives.
No court can change or edit any law.
To segment a law into parts that are constitutional and parts that are unconstitutional is an act by the court that is not allowed by the Cosntitution because the Constitution authorizes only Congress to write legislation.
The “law” is that body of text that was voted on in its entirety. If so much as one word or phrase or paragraph had not been included, then it is not constitutional for any court to make the assumption that the legislation would have passed and become law.
In short, the courts cannot write law.
So, if one word in the entire piece of legislation is unconstitutional, then the entire body of text passed with a single count of votes is unconstitutional.
… according to the Constitution, that is.
The Supreme Court has a history of insane rulings. Allowing legitimate agricultural crops to be seized because it MAY interfere with existing ILLEGAL interstate commerce; allowing an unelected municipal body to force the transfer of property from the owner to another private individual without any other justification other than the other private individual wants to use it differently than the legitimate owner; parsing the Constitution and making corporations equal to the individual in parts of the Constitution, but not all; and on, and on, and on.
Congress is just one of the branches of government we need to fix. Perhaps after we fix Congress, then Congress will do its job and ensure the Supreme Court actually uses the Constitution in their rulings.
“Penalty” and “tax” comes to mind, too, when insane Supreme Court rulings are mentioned.
According to the Constitution, only Congress can write legislation. The only law that can be forced on the people are laws that have passed the House of Representatives.
No court can change or edit any law.
To segment a law into parts that are constitutional and parts that are unconstitutional is an act by the court that is not allowed by the Cosntitution because the Constitution authorizes only Congress to write legislation.
The “law” is that body of text that was voted on in its entirety. If so much as one word or phrase or paragraph had not been included, then it is not constitutional for any court to make the assumption that the legislation would have passed and become law.
In short, the courts cannot write law.
Congress is just one of the branches of government we need to fix. Perhaps after we fix Congress, then Congress will do its job and ensure the Supreme Court actually uses the Constitution in their rulings.
“Penalty” and “tax” comes to mind, too, when insane Supreme Court rulings are mentioned.
Can someone please explain the rules to post here and avoid “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” It is inconvenient to the writer and reader to have to break up a post into segments to find the offending word or phrase that is causing the idea to be censored.
For an employee to relagate upon their employer an undue cost of bussiness is cause for said employee’s dismissal. Likewise, should said employee use his position to influence a shareholder into joining him in such activities is graft. What part of “Reward our freinds And punish our enemies” does not fit those parameters?
Unfortunately we are already losing our our best treatment for prostate cancer, proton therapy due to Obamacare.
Blue: Where are you getting your information? Go to a Tea Party event sometime. I’ve never seen any of the hate or discrimination you lite about and I date you to provide proof of your baseless claims!
The MD Anderson Proton treatment center is closing under Obamacare.
Kristene – The MD Andersen Proton Medical Ctr – University of Texas is closing? Are you serious? We just opened a few years ago. Medi-Care covers the cost of our procedures even though it cost 3 times more than conventional radiation treatment.
Yes, they saved my Dad’s life. Last month he was in for a check up they told him that the treatment was not going to be available any more. A casualty of Obamacare.
Kristene – That does not mean we are closing! If you are a good candidate for the procedure Medi-Care and most insurance companies will pay for it. If you have early prostate, lung or intestinal cancer and live near Houston, please visit the MD Andersen Medical Center. WE ARE NOT CLOSING!!!
Guest I am just telling you what the Dr, at the center in Houston told my Dad
If this is true – the doctor doesn’t know what he is talking about, I assure everyone we are NOT CLOSING! Think about what you are implying, the State of Texas and the University of Texas spent millions opening the medical center. Again, the University of Texas – MD Andersen Cancer Ctr in Houston Texas is NOT CLOSING!!!
But you should not be saying we are closing if you are NOT sure. What if someone reading your post decides not to come in for their cancer treatment because of your misinformed post.
How about we get one of those ole patriotic chants going.
Everybody. All together.
“God DAMN America!”
Or, let’s get one of those ole protest slogan/lies going.
Everybody. All together.
“Baby Killer!”
Or, how about we hate the so-called “rich” because they achieved success.
Or, how about we just hate all European white people. We can even invent something called “hate crimes” that only apply to everyone but European white people.
You and the Democrats are built solely around hate.
I don’t know about you, but I’d fear God if I sang those chants.
I used to be a republican, but after the last election, and the course change I see the GOP taking, I have no other recourse but to be a Tea Party Patriot. This is coming from one who served this Republic. I’d rather die fighting for the principles that our Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution rather than live in the Mediocrity of either Party, Dem or Republicans.
I just want everyone to know. The University of Texas – MD Anderson Proton Therapy Ctr in Houston Texas is NOT CLOSING. There was an earlier member’s post claiming that we were closing. I want to encourage everyone to visit for cancer treatment. We were voted a Top 10 Cancer hospital by US News for 2012.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Unless of course it is a Christian religion.
The liberal intolerance on display here is truly astonishing. If you can’t defend your point, attack and call people names. Liberalism is definitely a mental disorder.
I am against obamacare, but if the rest of us have to go by it the university should also. They are not special.
blue, I have been a Republican for more than 35 years. Now I belong to the Tea Party because their mission and core principles are the same as mine. You apparently are the blind follower. My husband of more than thirty years has never been politically minded and he joined as well. The rinos have let me down over and over. People have turned toward the Tea Party because they are independent thinkers. You have spewed more hate and misconceptions in your posts than any other poster that I have seen. You often just repeat the same ineffective accusations. I think you should take a look at the mission statement and principles and ask yourself why so many people are joining.
There is no way you are a Republican. Republicans are not Marxist communists. You are obviously a Marxist communist. You’d know that if you weren’t so ignorant you can’t even define “Marxism”. If you noticed, a definition of “Marxism” is never included in your indoctrination sessions.
Does that tell you anything, dupe?
Blue: Where are you getting your information? Go to a Tea Party event sometime. I’ve never seen any of the hate or discrimination you lite about and I date you to provide proof of your baseless claims!
So, you’re calling destroying our education system and replacing it with the most expensive education system in the world that generates the most ignorant workforce in the industrialized world “progress”?
You call changing from a country with a vibrant space exploration program to a beggar country that needs other countries to help it maintain its satelites and bring astronauts to a space station we don’t even own like third world countries “progress”?
You call subsidizing cultures that kill more people in our inner cities than are killed in a full-scale war “progress”?
You call hedonism “progress”?
You call generating a government that is absolutely impossible topay for “progress”?
The so-called “progressives” are the most regressive influence that has ever existed in the history of this country.
I am a recent college graduate. I put myself through college. Many students are graduating with tremendous debt because they are not using their money wisely. Right now the government will hand out money for college like candy. Instead of frugally using it and getting a part time job, many are living off from it and borrowing more than they need. It really is a personal responsibility issue. Many college graduates are returning to college and borrowing more because they can’t find a job. They will rack up more debt and come out in the same situation.
Kristene – what was your major? I’m sorry to say but just because you graduated from college doesn’t mean you are qualified to get a job. Most Liberal Art degrees are pretty useless in this day and age. People need to understand that low skill manufacturing jobs will NEVER come back to the US. We can NEVER compete against the Chinese because NO American will work for $2 an hour. Everyone is talking free markets, so you cannot blame companies for sending jobs overseas.
There are plenty of open jobs in the US but there are not enough qualified people who possess the technical skills. Mainly in Computer Science, Engineering, and Health Care. Personally, I think people stay away from these majors because they are very difficult compared to a Liberal Arts major like Art or History.
That’s assuming that they are relying on the Gov to pay for their education. That is an insult to any intelligent American. Since when did it become the Gov’s responsibility to pay for YOUR education? Did the Gov pay for the Founding Father’s education? No it didn’t. They paid for their own educaiton. I sir have paid for my own education. What buisness is it of the Gov to pay for or subsidize YOUR education and that of YOUR children’s education. it is the right of every individual to have the opprotunity to recieve and education, but it is also the right of every individual to have to pay for his education. And also where in the Constitution does it say sir that the role of the Gov is to secure your retirement i.e. Social Security? Where does it say sir in the Constition that the role of the Gov is to secure your healthcare? It is not there. The Founding Fathers believed it was the sole responsiblity of the individual to secure these things and when in the event the individual couldn’t they encourage the people to be benevolent to those who tried but could not secure these items. In the early days of the Republic, the people did not nursing homes and retirement homes. They relied on their families to take care of their financial and healthcare needs provided that there investments did not last to their end.
I say sir, rather than the Gov securing the finacial obligation for the patient, they need to, by the authority of the commerce clause, bring the greedy healthcare providers and pharmaseutical companies under control so that at the end of my parent’s life, I can afford to take care of them. That is the role of Gov.
The problem 47 percent of American have is, they see the Gov as a retirement system and that is why wer are seeing 4 and 5th generation welfare bums.
I’m not against welfare. I’m against using it to retire on. The democrats are guilty of making it so in order to secure votes. It a mis-use of power.
I can say something like “Democracy was someone’s belief 2,500 years ago” and go on to give retionale for it. I still wouldn’t have defined “Democracy”.
What you stated was rationale, not a definition. Rationale is subjective. Definition is objective.
Try again. And, remember that in recent history Marxism was used as the core principles of national governments in your lifetime.
The fact remains, you cannot even define Marxism, yet you redicule (Saul Alinksy rule number 5) the notion that Marxists exist. So far, the obvious conclusion is, you wouldn’t know a Marsist if one was brainwashing you with a bullhorn in your face.
Marxism is a state of revolution within the common masses by the proletariat against the bourgoise. The proletariat being those working for wages for the capitalist bourgoise, both being members of the common masses, which you should know (if you are knowledgeable of Marxist ideology) consists of the non-elite. Marx mentions the very small percentage of non-elite (in his time, this were the landed-wealth portion of the population, less than 1 percent) but never dictates how they should order and regulate their society. He only mandates the order and regulation of the 99 percent of the population other than the elite.
At the conclusion of the Marxist revolution, the perfect state of communism is instituted.
Marxist principles are in Das Kapital.
You should read it. It’s laborious and tedious reading, though. You have to have a lot of actual scholar within you to digest it. Most dupes just read the collection of mindless party line slogans that comprise the Communist Manifesto instead of actually learning what it is they are being duped with and reading Das Kapital.
You, so far, are showing yourself to be an ignorant Marxist communist dupe. Change that. Learn something about what you are supporting.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.” again. Censorship.
I stated that Marxist communism is alive and well today, and gave examples of it during your lifetime, which you should be well aware of. Thus, your statements inferring that because Marx lived 150 years ago makes Marxism irrelevant today are ludicrous. And, you are well aware that your argument is ludicrous.
Please wait until the censors release my answer, if they do not decide discussion the reality and definition of Marxism is against the purpose of this board.
Who is Frank Marshal Davis?
Who is Vernon Jarrett?
How did Frank Marshal Davis meet Obama’s father and mother?
Who is William Ayers?
Why did Obama, or Barry Soetoro, or whatever his name is, begin his political career in the home of William Ayers?
Who is Vallerie Jarrett?
Why does Vallerie Jarrett have the office immediately adjacent to the Oval Office today?
Answer these questions and blow a hole through the keel of your own bullsh*t.
Of course, you already know Marxism has a prominent presence in recent American history. You’re just lying because that’s your function here.
Yes, like some kind of cult. You remember, don’t you? The Democrats used to chant at all their parties they ludicrously called “protests” and showed their hatred of veterans by screaming at them, spitting on them, socially shunning them, castigating them, slandering them with lies.
Let’s get one of those ole Democrat chants going just for old time’s sake:
Everybody. All together now.
“Baby Killer!”
Now, let’s have Democrats spit on the veterans.
Doesn’t that make you feel better now?
What scares people, or the people that are educated (can actually define the term “Marxism”) is the fact that the Democrats are trying to push a plan that is taken almost verbatim out of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital.
You are a Marxist. If you can’t even define the term, which you failed to do in your last attempt, you are a Marxist dupe. You wouldn’t recognize a Marxist if one was brainwashing you with a bullhorn in your face.
Sweethart,
Where do you think the insurance companies get the money to pay for the birthcontrol? They get it from all the people paying for the insurance. Since it is mandated that EVERYONE buy insurance then EVERYONE is paying for the birthcontrol. It not about the birthcontrol its about forcing others to pay for it.
Your funny Did you even read what I said. I didnt say there should not be abortions or birth control. I didnt say get rid of it. I didnt say it should out lawed. I didnt say they should keep women from it.
I said if you want birth control than you should buy your own. How is this extreme thinking?
I drink soda, its my choice, people dont buy it for me. I drive a car, its my choice, people have not bought my car or paid for my gas. People smoke, its thier right and people do not buy cigarettes for them. This is the same thing. I am not extreme for thinking people should buy their own birth control.