Bye Bye Healthcare law

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

Hudson rejected the government's argument that it has the power under the Constitution to require individuals to buy health insurance, a provision that was set to take effect in 2014.

Score.

While I agree with the argument that it's a slippery slope, I don't think this is where we're going to get a victory against this healthcare plan. 

What?  No cry of activist judges?  Shocking how that works.  

usafpilot07 wrote: While I agree with the argument that it's a slippery slope, I don't think this is where we're going to get a victory against this healthcare plan.

This is exactly where it should be defeated.  If it is not defeated here, there is no limit to the potential amount of governmental intervention into the lives of citizens.

The commerce clause gives congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."  All of these are in and of themselves some type of organized government, it was never intended to be used as a club for the federal government to control personal aspects of citizen's lives.  (The original intention was to stop economic warfare between the various states that could have torn the nation apart in its early years*.)

It is being applied to the healthcare debate through the argument that healthcare is a product which is sold across state lines.  (Which will be true in all cases when it becomes a federal product.)  The potential misuse if this is allowed to stand is staggering.  Consider other products which could meet the definition of sold across state lines.  Don't like something in the newspaper/on TV . . . check if the signal/paper sales is crossing state lines or has the potential to.  Internet competition bad for local businesses, call the Feds and ask them to invoke the commerce clause to shut down/weaken competition.**

*Not the best explanation, but it gets the point across and has the advantage of not requiring a whole bunch of typing.
**I'm sure others can provide better examples.

GroupB wrote: What?  No cry of activist judges?  Shocking how that works.

Activist = going against the popular opinion...

Most Americans want this law removed, mainly for that one requirement.

Edited by Linus - 13 December 2010 at 2:39pm

FreeEnterprise wrote: But, two judges have already said it was Okey dokey... 9th district will overrule. Then off to the supreme court. Where it "should" fall for good.

agentwhale007 wrote: Linus wrote:  Activist = going against the popular opinion...   Which is not a negative. At all. The court system does not exist to regurgitate popular opinion, it exists to determine law based on constitutionality and feasibility within a structured system, not to go on popular opinion.

The idea of it? Of course not.


Too bad what really happens =/= how it SHOULD be.

agentwhale007 wrote: brihard wrote: the strongest argument against the healthcare law is the 'individual mandate', and the state presuming to tell people that they must purchase a product.  Legally it's not so much the forcing of someone to buy something - or, in this case, pay for something - that is causing the issue. It's the forcing of someone to buy something from a third-party business.  People are "forced" through living here to pay - through taxes - for unemployment insurance. But you're paying through the state through a taxation system, not to Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc.

How is it any different than telling people they need to buy car insurance?

agentwhale007 wrote: Benjichang wrote: agentwhale007 wrote: brihard wrote: the strongest argument against the healthcare law is the 'individual mandate', and the state presuming to tell people that they must purchase a product.  Legally it's not so much the forcing of someone to buy something - or, in this case, pay for something - that is causing the issue. It's the forcing of someone to buy something from a third-party business.  People are "forced" through living here to pay - through taxes - for unemployment insurance. But you're paying through the state through a taxation system, not to Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc.  How is it any different than telling people they need to buy car insurance? You can choose not to own a vehicle.

And, car insurance is also to protect others from your carelessness.

usafpilot07 wrote: I should clarify. I did not mean that I disagree with the premise of WHY it's being struck down. I thought I had addressed that in the first half of my post. I'm saying I don't trust our courts to shoot it down. It was more of a negative nancy post more than a political one.

Ah . . . I misinterpreted.


Edited by Mack - 13 December 2010 at 4:29pm

agentwhale007 wrote: Linus wrote: Too bad what really happens =/= how it SHOULD be. Examples?

You mean besides judges viewing the same exact law in different way and making legal standing based off of those laws?