Comments about ‘U.S. appeals court upholds Obama health care law’

Obama's problem isn't the Cincinnati Federal Appeals Court. No, Obama's problem is the US Supreme Court. They've already conceded that this ruling will be overturned.

Obama 2012

If congress has no power to require we have health insurance, how can congress have a law allowing people to be drafted to go to war?

CJB:

For the same reason congress cannot walk into your house--we have a Constitution and it was slaughtered today. The Constitution permits certain acts, such as general taxing, raising an army, and creating federal courts. The Constitution forbids other acts, such as prohibiting choice of religion, illegal searches and seizures, and restricts others acts, such as regulation of commercial activity. The Constitution clearly limits Congressional power to regulate only economic activity in interstate commerce. This opinion completely misses the mark and is the most dangerous opinion in the history of this country.

What can Congress NOT force you to buy? Under this opinion, the answer is clear--Congress can force you to buy bananas, toothbrushes, telephones, or nintendo games.

This opinion will be overturned because it is not rooted in well-established law and permits Congress to exceed its powers under the Commerce Clause.

The most dangerous opinion in the history of our country? Even with disagreeing with the appellate court's opinion there is no way any legal scholar of note would agree with you. It would be nice to have discussions based on a serious breakdown of an issue without the hyperbole.

Dang liberal appeals court!

Health Insurance, Car Insurance. Why should we be required by law to have 1 but not the other?

You're not required to have auto insurance by law, unless you own and operate a car. You can choose whether or not to own a car. A mandate for health insurance based solely on the fact that you're alive is completely different.

Pagan -

Did you mean 'Obama - Dec. 21, 2012', as in 'doomsday'?

EJM

Excuse me? No hyperbole here. This decision allows the government to force you to spend your money on items or service you do not want. Does that not strike you as dangerous? I have already spoken to my Con Law professor and he agrees.

Okay. How many times do we have to say this? Car Insurance--mandated by the state for those who drive. Perfect example of the general police power of the state. Health Insurance under Obamacare--mandate by federal government for those who are alive. In our federal system, the Federal Government has limited, enumerated powers. Forcing people to buy health insurance is not one of them. The Federal Government has no general police power and cannot force the populace to buy something merely because a person is alive.

I will make this clear: Please cite the passage of the constitution that permits the federal government to force people to buy things.

There is no passage that "permits" the federal government to force people to buy things. Maybe you should clarify/be more specific in terms of the language you want to use. All I am saying is this.....You and I can go around and around on this issue. I agree with you in your belief (and you missed my statement on this) that this law oversteps the power of the federal government. You didn't even read that because you were too busy trying to justify your statement about this appellate court's ruling being the "most dangerous opinion in the history of our country". More dangerous than Roe v. Wade? More dangerous than Brown v. Topeka Board of Education? Those are just 2 Supreme Court decisions that in their day (and for many legal scholars even still today) had greater, more far reaching implications than the decision of a lower appellate court.

Your statement about "most dangerous" is hyperbolic in nature. Are you entitled to it? Yes. Will I, and others, fight to make certain you have the right to your opinions? Yes. Oh....Article 1 Section 8..the last clause. Congress can do...

Re we the people

Congress can force us to buy national defense, why not health care? Which is personal defense.

Where does the constitution say we can't have health care for everyone? Shouldn't all people have decent health care?

'Pagan -
Did you mean 'Obama - Dec. 21, 2012', as in 'doomsday'?' - Abeille | 12:36 p.m.

No.

Did you?

Because we had to make it through Y2K to get to the most recent failed Doomsday...

May 21st, 2011. Then, we had to get through that doomsday to get to...

October 21, 2011. Then we have to get through THAT doomsday to get to..

December 21st, 2012.

Because, if we follow your logic the day of 'doom' should have been...

2008. When Obama got elected.

But...your still here. Saying that there's another doomsday comming.

I suppose that all of you calling "Obamacare" unconstitutional will also object to the Republican Medicare plan, which will end traditional Medicare and force seniors to purchase private insurance with a government subsidy, exactly what Obamacare does. Or is that one ok because it's a Republican proposal?

Judge Jeffrey Sutton concluded that the heart of the assault on the Affordable Care Act the claim that a law encouraging people to buy insurance is unconstitutional because Congress cannot compel people to take this unwanted action has no basis in the text of the Constitution, and it rests on a legal distinction that is utterly incoherent.

Sutton is a George W. Bush appointee and a former law clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. He served as an officer in the conservative Federalist Societys Federalism and Separation of Powers practice group, and was one of the nations leading crusaders for expanding the role of the states at the federal governments expense. Prior to becoming a judge, Sutton devoted much of his career to preventing people with disabilities, religious minorities, and even children who are illegally deprived of Medicaid coverage from holding states accountable in federal court even successfully arguing major states rights cases in the Supreme Court. So he is exactly the kind of person who would be extremely sympathetic to the conservative claim that the Affordable Care Act exceeds Congress lawful authority.

The CNN summary actually quotes the judge's decision:
"Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life. Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law...time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples' political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility."

Not to worry as Utah will send their two Constitional experts, Carl Wimmer and Senator Mike Lee, to straigthen out the Federal Court. Gee whiz, could these two experts be wrong on their interpreation of the Constitution?

re:WethePeople
The U.S. Consitution is one of the shortest in the world, leaving much to interpretation. The Supreme Court Justices can't even agree on all issues of consitutionality, though they agree on more issues than is publically reported.

As for what part of the Constitution might uphold the mandate:

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also referred to as the Elastic Clause:
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

And
The Commerce Clause:
United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Take it easy, Pagan. I was only kidding. In case you were concerned - no, I don't think December 21, 2012 will result in 'Doomsday.' Nor do I think 'Doomsday' will occur on October 21, 2011. And if Pres. Obama is re-elected, that wouldn't result in 'Doomsday' either - although I'll be quite disappointed (I don't like Presidents that lie to the pubic). And yes, I'm still here.

As for Health Care - we all know that something needs to be done. Allowing things to continue 'Laissez-faire' would be a terrible mistake. However, there are problems with the President's plan.

I don't think the best plan can be reached on a partisan level. Neither party has the right answer, but both have the arrogance to condemn the plans of their opponent. If we want a Health solution that'll work best for all Americans, then Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc need to come together and provide input. All need to find the points they agree with, then work out the points they disagree with. No party will get their 'perfect plan', but the American public might get the best possible plan with our representatives working together rather than battling each other.

As a free American I make my own decisions.
I decide what kind of light bulbs I want in my house.
I decide what kind of toilet I install in my home.
I decide if I want to buy health insurance.
I decide if I want a gas guzzler or not.

As a free American I decide!

In Obama's America:

Obama decides what kind of light bulbs I have.
Obama decides what kind of toilet I have.
Obama decides that I SHALL buy health insurance.
Obama decides who the CEO of GM is.
Obama decides that there will be no drilling in the gulf even after the courts ruled against his illegal moratorium.
Obama decides that GM And Chrysler creditors get stiffed even though legally they had to be paid first.

In Obama's Amerika Obama decides everything.

What is the difference between freedom and a dictatorship?

Just one thing: Who makes the decisions.

CJB:

Sure, people can have decent health care. Go for it. But leave me and my wallet and freedom alone. Go and buy your own healthcare. Enjoy. I'll tell you what, you do not even have to get insurance. Just pay your doctors' bills.

You have to buy national defense? Please show me your bill. If you mean that you have to pay taxes, Congress has that authority (see US Const. Art I, Sec 8 and Amend. XVII). Congress has the authority to tax and spend. Congress has the authority to raise an army (US Const. Art I, Sec. 8).

EJM:

I apologize if I am coming off harsh. I think that the Roe decision, as terrible and terribly flawed as it is, is less dangerous in the sense that it did not strip liberty from every person. Brown I is a positive decision. If you have the Necessary and Proper Clause in mind, check that jurisprudence.

Truthseeker:

Sutton made a mistake. He did, however, apply the law SCOTUS handed down. He misapplied the law and will be overturned. I note that he did not seek to create his own law; very admirable and a true conservative.