Health Reform Not Constitutional

[hogdogs]

According to a Pensacola FL. Federal judge...
Seems the wheels to stop this intrusion on our rights have begun to turn... Don't know when all the appeals will be exhausted but currently, the rights of the states and citizens are leading the intent of the federal government to take our rights...

I think this is okay to post... if not... "IBTL"...
Brent

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's watch this - discuss whether such a law meets constitutional muster. Go nuts and political - and adios to you.

Glenn

 

[hogdogs]

Yes, Glenn, I am only concerned with discussion of this and how it relates to the individual rights and states rights. I will be quick to report the thread if it veers into the political netherworld cesspool we avoid...

Brent

 

[a.lol.cat]

moar

Sigh, Florida once again showing it's backside for the rest of the county to see. Hate that about living in this state. I wouldn't go applauding a judge that goes meh, I can't figure out how to strike down the part of a law that's unconstitutional, so I'm just gonna throw it all out. This is a case of it was gonna happen, but this judge took the worst way possible to do it. Going against what is standard and just chucking the whole thing. Just because the law lacked a "severability clause" doesn't mean you scrap it all.

I worry for for our other rights if judges just decide that whole swaths of laws are unconstitutional, and strike the whole thing down, not just individual parts of them that actually might be sent up the appeals ladder to get decided.

 

[alloy]

My limited understanding is that he left it whole, but declared it all unconstitutional.
So now the Fed Gov't can appeal on the constitutionality of the entire thing.

Meanwhile, as it stands why would any of it be adopted or funded or implemented? At least until the appeal.
Still complete, and completely unconstitutional. Not picking and choosing what is or isn't to be left in or used. Whether he chose that route because of his opinion on it not having a severability clause I have no idea.

 

[LDSGJA]

Im not a political expert but it seems to me that it doesn't matter that the judge just through the whole thing out.

Either way, the HCR is so big that its going to be heard by the supreme court but its got to work its way through the lower channels first because their isn't an urgency to the situation.

If the judge made a detailed ruling it would just be ignored anyways because the supreme court justices are going to have their own opinions on the law.

IMHO

 

[alloy]

I wonder who will be funding the various portions at this point?

And will a tax attorney require those 1099's to go out?

 

[hogdogs]

The reason it was deemed entirely unconstitutional is because the folks who wrote the 1,500+ pages of junk didn't want it read in advance (gotta pass it to know what is in it) and to prevent various politicians from removing the parts they didn't like in order to get it passed, they included some sort of wording that prevented changing it... Judge said something along the lines of... "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void,"

So one more of my momma's sayin's still holds true... "Be careful what you want, you might just get it..." and one of dad's fits too... "Plan your act before you act your plan."

Brent

 

[hogdogs]

Just because the law lacked a "severability clause" doesn't mean you scrap it all.

Actually that is EXACTLY what a true judge does... he isn't at liberty to violate the way a law is written nor is it his job... His job is to simply hear both sides and rule on it... So the states say "and there is no way to sever the bad parts..." Judge asks federal lawyers... "Is this true? Is there a clause that prevents removing the unconstitutional?" Them fed lawyers answer in the affirmative and gavel swings... pretty much cut and dried. Don't blame florida, don't blame the other states and don't blame the judge... Blame the folks who wrote this travesty. Blame the folks who voted for it with out any idea what was written in it. Blame every one who thinks the federal government needs to poke their nose in the free enterprise system!

Brent

 

[a.lol.cat]

So I guess the Supreme Court striking down part of Sarbanes-Oxley Law were being fake judges.

"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, said that Sarbanes-Oxley law will remain in effect, with one change. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board will continue as before, but the Securities and Exchange Commission now will be able to remove board members at will.

That change, Roberts said, cures the constitutional problem."

Laws that have a unconstitutional component can and have had that component removed w/o the whole thing being declared unconstitutional.

As for the "free enterprise rabble rousing" Glenn E. Meyer already said check it at the door.

 

[hogdogs]

So I guess the Supreme Court striking down part of Sarbanes-Oxley Law were being fake judges.

"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, said that Sarbanes-Oxley law will remain in effect, with one change. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board will continue as before, but the Securities and Exchange Commission now will be able to remove board members at will.

That change, Roberts said, cures the constitutional problem."

Laws that have a unconstitutional component can and have had that component removed w/o the whole thing being declared unconstitutional.

Did that law have a clause that prevented severing? Did the lawyers in that case put the possibility of the change on the table for the judge to consider?

And mentioning the fact that free enterprise shouldn't be taken over by politicians isn't quite the "political" discussion Glenn warned against.

Brent

 

[a.lol.cat]

That is exactly what I referenced the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act" as it did not contain a "severability clause".

"Because the Sarbanes-Oxley Act contained no severability clause, some legal commentators forecast that such a ruling would lead to the entire act being thrown out, forcing Congress to act again or return to the law as it was before the act was passed.

Instead, the justices unanimously ruled that the board has been legally established and appointed. There was a 5-to-4 split, but it concerned only the way members of the board can be removed from office. "

Simply lacking the "severability clause" did not make the whole law unconstitutional, 9-0. The way in which the board members could be removed, which the "severability clause" was the contention was ruled unconstitutional 5-4.

 

[hogdogs]

You have to consider that this was just one step... not the big time supreme court of the land. I sure hope the entire thing is tossed out but at least I know the most invasive components will never fly.

Brent

 

[Al Norris]

You might want to read what Ilya Somin has to say about this decision, over at The Volokh Conspiracy.

Agree or disagree with the decision, you just might want to read all 78 pages of it. Otherwise, you are just mouthing soundbites.

BTW, everyone did eat their mandated helping of broccoli this week, yes?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That is exactly what I referenced the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act" as it did not contain a "severability clause".

A severability clause is a clause that specifically provides that "if any portion of this law is found to be invalid, the portions NOT found to be invalid shall remain in effect." A law that simply omits such a clause could, depending on the case, the circumstances, and the judge, still have only the defective portions invalidated.

But here we are talking about a law that specifically includes a NON-severability clause. In other words, the Congress did NOT say "If any part is no good, the rest stays." Instead, they said, "It's all or nothing, sucker. You can't have one without the other."

That's a very different animal.

 

[Buzzcook]

Not a fan of the individual mandate. Without at least a public option it's punitive.

But we are mandated (in my state at least) to buy car insurance. SSI and medicare are mandated. Signing up for selective service is mandated.

I wouldn't be surprised if the court found the individual health insurance mandate unconstitutional, but it does open a can of worms if they do.

Should have just passed medicare for all and been done with it.

 

[csmsss]

Not a fan of the individual mandate. Without at least a public option it's punitive.

But we are mandated (in my state at least) to buy car insurance. SSI and medicare are mandated. Signing up for selective service is mandated.

I wouldn't be surprised if the court found the individual health insurance mandate unconstitutional, but it does open a can of worms if they do.

Should have just passed medicare for all and been done with it.

That's an entirely invalid comparison. You are not required to buy car insurance as a condition of residence in the U.S. You are only required to buy car insurance if you desire to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. If you can't see the glaring difference there, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[LDSGJA]

Also SSI and Medicare benefits aren't really mandated, but the taxes are.

So basically a universal social health system would probably be constitutional, but the mandate for citizens to buy insurance probably is not.

The mandate is problematic because you are required to buy insurance simply for being alive! To avoid paying taxes you can just not work, to avoid car insurance you can ride the bus.

Health insurance is problematic because its so expensive. I was paying $4,000 a year for my wife and I, it barley covered anything and had a high deductible and a high out of pocket expense - we decided to go without insurance

 

[hogdogs]

I prefer not to get involved in legalized monetary gambling! I very much despise the notion of being FORCED into gambling with my money...
Insurance of any type is legalized gambling. The only reason I buy auto insurance is because it covers the other guy... I cannot afford to fix him or his car so it is nearly worth it... Health insurance is not worth it to me. I couldn't afford the good stuff.

Try to tell me how i could afford this federal type insurance and I will let you in on a little tidbit of info... We fall short by a few bucks each month on our bills. It is only by the use of "creative fiscal disciplines" that we finally break even.

So a single penny more and it may not be possible to continue.

Brent

 

[maestro pistolero]

The president doesn't have a line-item veto, and neither does a Judge. As has been pointed out, there is no way to amend a law from the bench, only toss it out. So it is either all constitutional, or not.