posted March 30, 2012 03:07 PM            

of course, clement is right, the mandate could just be transformed into a tax - and it would still be cheaper than the way we are CURRENTLY PAYING for that "FREE" care.

posted March 30, 2012 03:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
There are NO legal arguments which could possibly save O'BomberCare.

The mandate to force anyone in America to enter into commerce is unconstitutional. No such power is granted to the federal government...anywhere in the Constitution.

Forcing anyone to enter into a contract against their will...an insurance policy...for instance, voids the contract at it's inception as a violation of "Contract Law".

There is no "severability clause" in this 2700 page pile of crap. Therefore, if ANY part of O'BomberCare is unconstitutional, the entire pile of crap is struck down. Period.

The only way O'BomberCare can survive...until a new Congress repeals the entire act..if for 5 Justices to vote to uphold the illegal act.

But that would not be on any LEGAL rational basis. That would be a "Political act" which would grant "unlimited power" and authority to the federal government and that would violate the very essence of the rule of law and the Constitution...which is nothing but a severe limitation on the power, reach and authority of the federal government.

---

The fact that it got as CLOSE as it did is scary in itself.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 30, 2012 03:24 PM            

the mandate is only one part of the act, and as the "prosecuting" attorney pointed out, this could easily be changed to a tax.

posted March 30, 2012 04:42 PM            

You know, folks, it is hilarious and it's pathetic how the media are all aflutter about how the court is gonna vote on Obamacare today and then not announce their ruling 'til the end of June. It's not fair. It just isn't right. They know and we don't. We have to wait until June.

So they're hunting around here, they're hoping and praying for leaks.

apart from one bit where he says only the left leaning judges have politicized the court, rush makes more sense than most of his listeners here. he fails to include those who agree with him about the law and have already decided what the vote will be.

as he points out, WE will not know until june no matter how many carts get put before horses!

posted March 30, 2012 05:44 PM            

FYI most doctors i have known have GLADLY worked for nothing in the interests of their patients - and not always because it was absolutely necessary.

posted March 30, 2012 05:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Perhaps they will say we enter into those insurance Contracts "voluntarily." After all, it is the IRS enforcing it!

---

good one.

posted March 30, 2012 05:50 PM            

If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Selective Service will accept late registrations but not after a man has reached age 26. http://www.sss.gov/default.htm

quote:

---

The mandate to force anyone in America to enter into commerce is unconstitutional.

---

Even the justices don't question that the general population will enter into commerce with the medical community unless they are barred for religious reasons. Only the timing is forced, not the interaction. As anyone can get severely injured at any time regardless of any desire not to be, it is logical that the means for treatment should be present at all times. If a person is uninsured by choice, that does not mean that they absolutely won't come into the position of requiring treatment.

quote:

---

There is no "severability clause" in this 2700 page pile of crap. Therefore, if ANY part of O'BomberCare is unconstitutional, the entire pile of crap is struck down. Period.

---

Also not the opinion of the justices. Even the Conservative justices, even Scalia, voiced that this was not cut and dry. There is no declaring "Period" on your declaration.

posted March 30, 2012 07:32 PM            

i didn't say he HAS to read it, i said he is not in a position to judge it because he doesn't plan to read it...the case is about very little of the act, which i doubt jwhop has read either, though he feels ENTITLED to judge it anyway. fortunately jwhop is not on the supreme court!

posted March 30, 2012 07:47 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 30, 2012 07:52 PM            

Right Randall, no one can be compelled to enter into a contract against their will.

As for the "tax" vs fine or penalty issue.

No where in the pile of crap named O'BomberCare is there any mention of payment of a TAX if one fails to buy the federally tailored and supposed mandated health insurance policy.

In law, the party writing the lease, the contract or the law is deemed to have had the opportunity to use whatever language they wished, to insert any clause they wished and the terms and conditions are to be clear to both parties. And if a dispute arises as to the terms and conditions of the lease, the contract or the law, the court is to construe that or those issues in dispute heavily against the party who wrote the unclear document.

Besides which, there must be a "meeting of the minds" for any contract to be valid. Otherwise, it cannot be enforced and courts will declare it void.

Of course the Supreme Court Justices are not going to go through 2700 pages of dog crap and rule on every line as a separate issue.

The fact is that the abortion named O'BomberCare was handed to Senators about 3 hours before they were to vote on it...on Christmas Eve no less.

Nancy Pee-Lousy said..."We'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it".

posted March 30, 2012 07:56 PM            

a meeting of the minds, eh? have you and your insurance company had such a meeting?

posted March 30, 2012 09:08 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 31, 2012 12:37 AM            

A contract requires..among other things a "consideration", without which the contract is void and unenforceable.

O'BomberCare is also "Void for Vagueness", in that the average citizen cannot read the pile of crap and understand what penalties, fines and/or punishments might be imposed or what and/or whom is required to do what. Hell, even members of Congress...most of whom are lawyers..can't read O'BomberCare and understand what's in the entire body of the supposed law.

Since O'BomberCare gave almost unlimited authority to the Sec of Health and Human Services to write regulations...without Congressional Authority or oversight, no citizen could possibly know what is required or what will be required. This jerk Sec has already written about 10,000 additional pages to add to the already 2700 pages of dog crap.

O'BomberCare could never be constitutional because of many old and accepted...in law...principles of American, British Common Law and the Constitution itself.

I didn't need to read the entire body of the pile of crap named O'BomberCare to know the legislation is and always was unconstitutional. I've always known no person can be compelled by the federal government to purchase anything from any 3rd party...like an insurance company...or broccoli, or a Ford, or a house.

posted March 31, 2012 03:39 PM            

and even what the justices say and write is called OPINION. because that is what it is.