The Unconstutionality of Healthcare Reform

[Howey]

OH....i'm sorry...wrong door....excuse me...

then closes the door behind him................

Stick around. We want your opinion!

[betteroffhere]

OH....i'm sorry...wrong door....excuse me...

then closes the door behind him................

Stick around. We want your opinion!

all righty then....it is of my opinion...

that a tiny red x in a large box surrounded by a thin white boreder seems strange for a signature pic...

and....is lilmike the polar bear ?

[lil mike]

Hmm... you have no opinion at all?  I think this is code for, "I don't even understand the legal issue being discussed."  How can you criticize the Judge's decision if you don't have an opinion on it?  You really do need to lean on those talking points.  It looks like you would be lost without them.

Maybe I misstated that. My opinion is that there are far more intelligent and less agenda-driven judges out there with a greater knowledge of the Commerce Act than you, me, or Judge Don't Tread on Me Vinson.

Not just democrat, republican too. If anything, my opinion (see?) is that Vinson shot himself and the repeal health care reform by saying it's unconstitutional in the foot with his stupidity.

btw...have you visited the Damn Socialists thread? Interesting...I believe it's in the BizarroAmerika2011 board...

Well I would agree in a technical sense we don't have the background or training to give a professional legal opinion.  But that kind of goes without saying.  You should be able to state your own opinion if you think there are any limits to the commerce clause or not.

[Howey]

Well I would agree in a technical sense we don't have the background or training to give a professional legal opinion.  But that kind of goes without saying.  You should be able to state your own opinion if you think there are any limits to the commerce clause or not.

My opinion of the commerce clause is irrelevant; although of course I agree with the majority of those who believe, going back to the inception of our country, that it's a two-way street, a view that's been used most often by the courts in interpreting the Clause. That being, the Clause by its own existence strips states of the authority to regulate some ways, but allows them to retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in other ways. 

Of course, that would require one to think beyond the black/white box and embrace the gray. You have a problem with that, don't you?

and....is lilmike the polar bear ?

Nah...he's more of a Vincent. All bark and no bite, iykwim. 

[lil mike]

My opinion of the commerce clause is irrelevant; although of course I agree with the majority of those who believe, going back to the inception of our country, that it's a two-way street, a view that's been used most often by the courts in interpreting the Clause. That being, the Clause by its own existence strips states of the authority to regulate some ways, but allows them to retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in other ways. 

Of course, that would require one to think beyond the black/white box and embrace the gray. You have a problem with that, don't you?

In what way does it stiip the authority of the states to regulate?    I don't really see a contradiction, although it's irrelevant to the issue I was concerned about, which is:  What are the limits of the commerce clause, since health reform is stretching it to include non commerce and non activity.  Doing nothing apparently is considered interstate commerce now.  And of course, the ability of the federal government to force by law purchase of a private product is another issue that you would think that liberals would oppose.  For all of your bleating about those big, bad insurance companies, this plays right into their hands.  The government is ordering you to buy their products. 

Any limit on that kind of power?

[Howey]

Guess who's backtracking now?

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/147283-judge-grants-stay-of-decision-striking-down-health-law

A federal judge who struck down the entire healthcare reform law issued a stay of his ruling to give the Obama administration seven days to file an expedited appeal.

The administration asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson for a clarification of his Jan. 31 ruling after some states effectively declared the health law dead in light of the ruling.

Vinson's ruling allows the administration to continue implementation of the healthcare law while taking their appeal to the next level.

Vinson said the declaratory judgment in favor of the 26 states and National Federation of Independent Business who challenged the law was intended to be “the functional equivalent of an injunction.” However, the administration said that Vinson never addressed in his decision how the law should be stopped.

In his clarification, Vinson criticized the administration for continuing to implement the law while delaying its request for a stay of the decision.

It was not expected that it would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and a half weeks, continue to implement the act, and then file a belated motion to “clarify,” Vinson wrote.

Vinson sympathized with the administration’s argument that halting the law would potentially disrupt hundreds of other provisions not related to the individual mandate. Some have already gone into effect, and many more will become effective before the mandate takes hold in 2014.

Vinson, a Reagan appointee, became the first federal judge to strike down the entire healthcare overhaul on Jan. 31, when he found that the law’s requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional and cannot be severed from the rest of the law.

[betteroffhere]

hmm...backtracking or allowing for do process according to the law...?

[Howey]

hmm...backtracking or allowing for do process according to the law...?

Hey...I was going by the headline on Drudge. 

[ekg]

I like how our gov is so against this law that he wants it repealed.. but not against it enough to NOT take the $35million he'll get from it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/florida-governor-rick-scott_n_830904.html
Gov. Rick Scott will allow a state agency to accept a $35.7-million federal health grant, even though the funds flow from a law that Scott hates and says is invalid.

nice.. it's almost like Palin taking the money for that bridge, using it on another empty project and then saying "I said 'thanks, but no thanks' to the bridge money"

they're all freaking gonzo..