posted June 13, 2011 01:22 PM            

O'Bomber care is unconstitutional under US constitutional law at the point O'BomberCare attempts to compel by coercion, ALL citizens to purchase an insurance policy as a condition of being alive in the United States.

posted June 13, 2011 03:43 PM            

Now, if you'd like to prove that Maritime/Admiralty law doesn't fall under Federal jurisdiction (which I'm pretty certain it does if the Congress and the President have the option of directing it), go ahead, but clearly there's a sign from the founding fathers of our nation that when the nation's welfare is destabilized due to healthcare issues, there is precedent for the government imposing a tax for the purpose of supplying the needed healthcare.

posted June 13, 2011 03:45 PM            

the only exemptions were those ineligible for service, and those considered somewhat less than citizens (women and NONfree men)..

posted June 14, 2011 11:13 AM            

The only possible reason for this footnote to the 1798 law was to show the authority under which it was enacted.

"1 Curtis, George Tickner. A treatise on the rights and duties of Merchant Seaman, According to the General Maritime Law, and the Statutes of the United States. Boston: Charles C Little and James Brown, 1841), 407-409"

Otherwise, this footnote...and it's the only footnote...sheds no light on the construction of the 1798 law.

Of course Jefferson agreed the law was constitutional...under Maritime Law. Jefferson was a attorney who was well versed in Maritime Law. It was Jefferson who urged the inclusion of a statement of the right to trial by jury which became the 7th Amendment to the US Constitution.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

The reason Jefferson wanted the right to trial by jury..of ones peers..is because
King George III was trying colonists in Admiralty Courts, bypassing the common law courts in cases even remotely involving the transportation by sea of products forced on American colonists...like Tea for instance. Further, the judges of Admiralty Courts in colonial times owed their appointments, salaries and allegiance to King George III.

So, who was President in 1798 and what did that President know about the law governing the 1798 Law.

John Adams was President and John Adams was a Maritime attorney when in private practice. As was Alexander Hamilton.

Ummm, Congress has the Constitutional authority to raise armies and make laws pursuant thereto. You'll find that authority in Article I, Section 8.

So, none of the arguments by kos or other raving lunatics who wish to consign American citizens to an absolute tyranny with the Federal government having no limits to their authority whatsoever, suffice.

posted June 14, 2011 04:31 PM            

quote:

---

So, none of the arguments by kos or other raving lunatics who wish to consign American citizens to an absolute tyranny with the Federal government having no limits to their authority whatsoever, suffice.

---

Feeling dramatic? Are you saying people wouldn't be free to buy their own insurance, or join their employer's insurance plan? Where's the tyranny in that? Limits? How is the government's power unlimited when it has no influence over those already insured via the citizen's own means?

posted June 14, 2011 05:26 PM            

The law was not enacted under Constitutional Law but rather under Maritime Law and because it was Maritime Law intended only for those engaged in Maritime occupations...it was constitutional.

The Founders and the citizens of the several states would have found O'BomberCare revolting, a threat to their liberty and they would have revolted in short order.

The Attorneys Generals of 26 states--the majority...also find O'BomberCare revolting and so do 58% of Americans who don't just want O'BomberCare amended; they want O'BomberCare Repealed.

Why would there have been Constitutional challenges to a Maritime Law which was well within the authority of the Congress to enact..under Maritime Law?

posted June 14, 2011 06:52 PM            

Congress regulates admiralty partially through the Commerce Clause. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Admiralty

Commerce. This is what the complaint is in regards to, correct? Yes. The challenge is to Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce. This makes Admiralty Law right in line with the current legislation.

"Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem. Health care coverage, he said, is unique because of the billions of dollars shifted in the economy when Americans without coverage seek medical care." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110608/ap_on_re_us/us_health_overhaul

quote:

---

The Founders and the citizens of the several states would have found O'BomberCare revolting, a threat to their liberty and they would have revolted in short order.

---

That's wild speculation on your part. The fact that there was not even a challenge within the system of shipping commerce points rather emphatically to a different truth, one that sees the sense in being taxed in return for healthcare. You did not find a single challenge did you?

quote:

---

Why in the world would Adams or Jefferson comment on the status of the law under Constitutional Law.

---

The more appropriate question is, Why in the world would Adams or Jefferson participate in the creation of a law that wasn't inherently Constitutional? You think they'd make blatantly unConstitutional laws for Admiralty law? Really?

quote:

---

Why would there have been Constitutional challenges to a Maritime Law which was well within the authority of the Congress to enact..under Maritime Law?

---

posted June 14, 2011 07:54 PM            

Admiralty Law, Maritime law may in some cases be involved in Interstate Commerce BUT if you're now attempting to tie O'BomberCare to Maritime Law, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Only those engaged in Maritime occupations could be brought under O'BomberCare in the first place, if that were the case...and second, no one from the O'Bomber administration has made any reference to Maritime law.

O'Bomber and his congressional comrades are without any authority to declare that simply being born in America and being alive, now requires citizens to give up their freedom of choice...to buy or not to buy an O'Bomber insurance policy.

Not under any tortured logic or illogic is that possible.

Like almost all O'Bomber administration officials Neal Katyal is a hack and a nutty leftist quack.

In most states, there's only 1, 2, or 3 insurance companies operating within the state from which health insurance is offered. That's one of the reasons health insurance premiums keep skyrocketing...no competition among insurance companies for business.

posted June 15, 2011 11:29 AM            

No, I'm not talking about the current healthcare reform being a Admiralty Law. I don't know why your mind even goes there.

No, the point I'm making is that Maritime Law deals with commerce, and commerce is exactly the premise that the current challenge to the current law deals with. That is the only connection I made.

Obama and virtually anyone else with a lick of sense can see the truth that ALL people regardless of place of birth will require healthcare at some point of their life. It would be great if we had the CHOICE not to ever require healthcare, but that is NOT a choice that we have. Since people that don't have healthcare are a drain on the Federal budget, and since this reform takes away the ability to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, it is necessary to have everyone insured. Otherwise, people will only purchase insurance when the need arises, and the medical expenses that these people incur will exceed their premiums, which would essentially put the insurance company in the same boat the federal government is now in: giving charity healthcare to people too irresponsible to maintain insurance.

quote:

---

Not under any tortured logic or illogic is that possible.

---

There hasn't been any logic in anything you've said here.

quote:

---

What we're really talking about here is Intrastate Commerce, not Interstate Commerce and neither the Executive Branch or the Congressional comrades have the authority to regulate commerce WITHIN A state.

---

posted June 15, 2011 02:50 PM            

Your own words...

"Commerce. This is what the complaint is in regards to, correct? Yes. The challenge is to Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce. This makes Admiralty Law right in line with the current legislation."

Oh, and no, it doesn't.

O'BomberCare seeks to force everyone to buy and insurance policy..not just those involved in Maritime occupations.

These dumb clucks are saying Interstate Commerce extends to those who don't want to buy an O'BomberCare insurance policy. Got it? You're engaged in Interstate Commerce when you're NOT buying. The absence of commerce indicates Interstate Commerce to these dumb clucks.

Next, you and the Marxist morons...O'Bomber and his congressional comrades...will be telling us that because of the climate need...everyone must buy a Chevy Volt and pay to have a 220 Volt plug installed in their garage to keep the battery charged.

Those on food stamps must buy carrots, peas and arugula.

posted June 15, 2011 03:58 PM            

First off, you'll never be as free as me. A closed mind is not a free one. Further, you're the one dutifully repeating other people's opinions in an attempt to form an argument.

Unfortunately, those people making those arguments don't consider things very well.

quote:

---

These dumb clucks are saying Interstate Commerce extends to those who don't want to buy an O'BomberCare insurance policy. Got it? You're engaged in Interstate Commerce when you're NOT buying. The absence of commerce indicates Interstate Commerce to these dumb clucks.

---

*Said dryly* Ha ha ha...dum ass. Those sailors who weren't engaged in commerce with healthcare providers were also NOT necessarily buying, and were also forced to do so. Also, as soon as an uninsured person enters a healthcare facility for treatment, they are participating in commerce whether they're paying or the government is.

quote:

---

Next, you and the Marxist morons...O'Bomber and his congressional comrades...will be telling us that because of the climate need...everyone must buy a Chevy Volt and pay to have a 220 Volt plug installed in their garage to keep the battery charged.

---

Well...except that we're free not to move, we're free not to travel, we're free to take multiple modes of transportation, etc. There is no similarity to healthcare, which everyone WILL NEED. A Chevy Volt is not a need. Carrots, peas and arugula are not a necessity. It's an apples to oranges comparison, and that's why it doesn't work.

posted June 15, 2011 06:38 PM            

I have patiently explained to you why it was constitutional for the Congress to pass that health insurance law in 1798. It was a Maritime act affecting only Maritime occupations.

I have also patiently explained to you precisely why O'BomberCare is unconstitutional and why the US Supreme Court decision will be in favor of the states who have filed suit.

You fail to connect the requisite dots acoustic. If the Congress can declare anything they wish to be in the public interest by extensions of the Interstate Commerce Clause...even to the point that not participating in buying IS considered Interstate Commerce, then that very same power could be used to require citizens to buy anything at all..including a Chevy Volt...to spur the economy, including carrots, peas and arugula...to improve health in Americans and cut down on health care costs.

Anything at all can be declared a benefit to society, even if it's pure bullshiiit.

And you acoustic, are quite willing to give this unfettered power to the federal government.

posted June 15, 2011 07:10 PM            

quote:

---

I have patiently explained to you why it was constitutional for the Congress to pass that health insurance law in 1798. It was a Maritime act affecting only Maritime occupations.

---

You have done no such thing. You're not in a position to explain things to me. For that you'd have to be more knowledgeable, and you aren't. I know it only applied to Maritime occupations. That was never at issue. At issue was your contention that because it was a Maritime/Admiralty Law that it doesn't serve as any sort of precedent. Some believe it does. Others point out that some of our founding fathers made this law happen, which suggests that they wouldn't be against the modern healthcare reform legislation.

quote:

---

I have also patiently explained to you precisely why O'BomberCare is unconstitutional and why the US Supreme Court decision will be in favor of the states who have filed suit.

---

No, you have recited what the lawyers bringing the case have stated as their case. It's flawed logic, however, as the forced purchasing of insurance that every person in our nation inherently needs is materially different in every way to the forced purchase of any other non-essential product available.

quote:

---

You fail to connect the requisite dots acoustic.

---

Strike that. Reverse it. You haven't budged despite my retelling you of this crux of the argument several times now. It's not me who doesn't get it. It's easy to understand your side, and it's easy to prove your argument wrong. Always has been.

quote:

---

If the Congress can declare anything they wish to be in the public interest by extensions of the Interstate Commerce Clause...even to the point that not participating in buying IS considered Interstate Commerce, then that very same power could be used to require citizens to buy anything at all..including a Chevy Volt...to spur the economy, including carrots, peas and arugula...to improve health in Americans and cut down on health care costs.

---

Just to reitterate once AGAIN. The difference is in the necessity of the product. There won't be a product like a food or a car that will ever be necessary to a person's livelihood. Only medical services are unequivocally necessary to every person living in the world. No particular food is. No particular car is. Understand?

quote:

---

Anything at all can be declared a benefit to society, even if it's pure bullshiiit.

---

Or even if it's not. That's where your thinking is most tremendously disappointing. It would never be a detriment for everyone to have access to healthcare. You can't make that case, so you certainly can't call it bullshiiit.

quote:

---

And you acoustic, are quite willing to give this unfettered power to the federal government.

---

posted June 15, 2011 08:02 PM            

What I don't see, or perhaps understand is how conservatives have come to this pass.

How conservatives have gone so far off message.

I realized that it has taken time, but in the last couple years it is a snowball rolling down the hill.

-- the rhetoric, the talking points-- are all incredibly off message, and completely irresponsible.
That spokespeople for the party have manage to sell this to constituents is perhaps even more amazing.

posted June 15, 2011 10:00 PM            

Perhaps you've forgotten who is in touch with mainstream America...and who most definitely is not.

demoscats are lucky they only had a few Senators up for reelection last November or Republican would now control the Senate and the House. Next election, demoscats have to defend about 23 Senate seats. They're going to lose the Senate too.

Lucky too for the Marxist O'Bomber that he wasn't on the ballot last November or he would no longer be infesting the White House.

Mainstream Americans despise O'BomberCare. The Federal Appeals Court in Atlanta is likely going to declare the mandate requiring citizens to purchase O'BomberCare unconstitutional...at the very least.

O'Bomber knows he's going to lose in the Supreme Court. That's the reason he's been stringing the cases out and refusing to fast track the suits to the Supreme Court. He thinks that once the provisions of O'BomberCare are implemented the regulations will be so intangled it will be very difficult to unravel all the provisions.

O'Bomber is wrong about that. The new Republican Congress is going to repeal every provision of O'BomberCare and a republican President is going to sign the death bill of O'BomberCare.

posted June 16, 2011 04:25 AM            

Probably not.

O'bomber this and O'bomber that does not address the issue of what that article-- and the quotes-- so clearly point out.

posted June 16, 2011 08:02 AM            

I'm a Republican as a defensive measure. The far left radical demoscats make me...and a majority of Americans want to throw up.

Republicans are definitely on point in the repeal of O'BomberCare, restricting union bosses from running the states through buying demoscat politicians, reducing taxes, reducing spending and creating a favorable climate for the private sector to create jobs.

Bringing suit against O'BomberCare is only one step in the right direction to reduce health care costs.

I favor fee for service. Until the 1930s, there was no health insurance industry and people got along just fine paying their own medical bills.

State and Federal government are the cause of skyrocketing health care costs. Whenever deep pocket entities are paying the bills, prices go through the roof....always.

posted June 16, 2011 10:02 AM            

AG=>

quote:

---

I'm quite willing to let my government unburden itself from the expense of paying for all the medical needs of the uninsured. If you were a truly sharp Conservative, you would too. You'd understand that this pushes personal responsibility. You're too wrapped up in ideology; in someone else's ill-conceived outrage over imagined boogie men to understand that this is an anti-welfare measure. You do remember how this bill was passed, right? Reconciliation. It was passed, because it cut costs. Maybe that's why Republicans back to Nixon endorsed the idea of an individual mandate.

---

I am more interested in the radical shift by the conservative right against fiscal conservancy, which health reform was all about. The nations bottom line.

As others have fully covered the unconstitutional part (it's not) and 2 or three judges are not going to help. it will not be over turned. The closer we get to 2014 the better the nation will like it too. Can we move on?

posted June 16, 2011 10:10 AM            

quote:

---

Republicans are definitely on point in the repeal of O'BomberCare

---

posted June 16, 2011 11:54 AM            

Only far left radical twits want a Socialist Health Care package tailored on the Canadian or British models.

I believe I did speak to acoustic's question.

posted June 16, 2011 12:29 PM            

This one confirms Node's belief that people wanted the reform to do MORE. It also shows the percentage wanting repeal DECREASING. http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%20Poll%20January%20Topline%20Full%20Final%20011111_HC.pdf

This one says more people want to keep it than repeal it. It's also from this year: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Jan11_healthcare.pdf

This one finds a definite majority oppose the law, but strangely the percentage difference between those that would like Congress to work to implement the law, and those who would like the law repealed to be only 3% (41% for implementation versus 44% for repeal). 49%, incidentally, found Republicans to be criticizing Obama rather than contributing anything positive. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/Newsweek_DailyBeast_0222.htm

CNN's poll finds people favoring most of the proposals in the bill by a higher percentage than those that oppose most. It's only a two question poll, Jwhop. I think you can handle reading this one. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/18/rel1e.pdf

posted June 16, 2011 03:15 PM            

Of course, you can skew any poll...when you manipulate and load those polled with respondents who agree with you.

But, this is the real breakdown among demoscats, Republicans and Independents:

35.6 Republican
34.0 demoscat
30.4 Independents

So much for your skewed polls acoustic.

posted June 16, 2011 04:06 PM            

quote:

---

But, this is the real breakdown among demoscats, Republicans and Independents:

35.6 Republican
34.0 demoscat
30.4 Independents

---

I have no idea what you're referring to here.

quote:

---

About 58% of likely voters want O'BomberCare Repealed. and that's the number that counts...likely voters.

---

posted June 19, 2011 07:56 AM            

Having said that I wonder how anyone believes the Affordable Care Act (and owns a small business) feels it is a detriment by their being able to offer it to employees.

This reform actually makes it possible for small business to offer health care incentives/groups band together to get the same rates as larger companies, when they would have never been able to afford it before.