The First Chink in the Armor - Health Care Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional

[Gutshot John]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._WSJ_US_News_3

[Gutshot John]

http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/C...%20Opinion.pdf

[THCDDM4]

Quoted fromt the article linked above by GSJ:

"U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

No shit it exceeds congressional powers/constitutional boundaries...

Good to see judges standing up against this atrocity of an unconstitutional bill.

Reading that bill, whilst my congresmen and woman didn't for some reason (When it is their effing job for chrissake, and I barely have time to read stuff that is entertaining!) was tantamount to receving a frontal lobe lobotomy while being raped by an inmate named Tiny. The fact that it passed the house and senate is beyond me, and truly proves how far removed from reality our so called "representatives" have become.

[montanadave]

"U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

A rather weak argument given the fact that there is NO provision within the bill for enforcement of the penalty should anyone refuse the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

Put another way, there is apparently no penalty for failing to pay the penalty for failing to purchase individual insurance.

Section 1501 of H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) discusses the individual mandate and amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Chapter 48, Section 500A, paragraph (g) Administration and Procedure, (2) Special Rules) with the following language: "(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...bORsk:e406299:)

I don't understand how you can seek to overturn a law for imposing an individual mandate when, in essence, the mandate doesn't exist. Is a law without any penalty for violating that law enforceable?

Just another example of the smoke and mirrors contained within this health care bill and all the misconceptions surrounding it, whether promulgated by opponents or supporters. What a mess!

[ForTehNguyen]

doesnt change the fact that you are still forced to pay for it.

[Avenger29]

Good, get rid of this crap bill and start over. This time WITHOUT the massive giveaways to insurance and pharma companies.

Ya know, we really don't want them to "try, try again".

[Gutshot John]

A rather weak argument given the fact that there is NO provision within the bill for enforcement of the penalty should anyone refuse the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

You've missed the point.

Obamacare may not have an enforcement mechanism now because enforcement without a precedent in support of an individual mandate would probably make it unconstitutional. The writers aren't stupid. It's a process of building the power up and this is only the foundation.

Obamacare as written is counting on the mandate itself being endorsed by the court first and adding enforcement later to this or other bills down the road once the precedent of an individual mandate has been established.

If the mandate itself survives the courts, than enforcement is the next logical step because you can't "mandate" behavior if you can't enforce it.

[montanadave]

You've missed the point.

Obamacare may not have an enforcement mechanism now because enforcement without a precedent in support of an individual mandate would probably make it unconstitutional. The writers aren't stupid. It's a process of building the power up and this is only the foundation.

Obamacare as written is counting on the mandate itself being endorsed by the court first and adding enforcement later to this or other bills down the road once the precedent of an individual mandate has been established.

If the mandate itself survives the courts, than enforcement is the next logical step because you can't "mandate" behavior if you can't enforce it.

Point taken. And, once more with feeling, what a mess!

[Mac5.56]

I thought we were all pissed off about Activist Judges?

[CarlosDJackal]

A rather weak argument given the fact that there is NO provision within the bill for enforcement of the penalty should anyone refuse the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

Put another way, there is apparently no penalty for failing to pay the penalty for failing to purchase individual insurance...

This is totally irrelevant and is more smoke and mirrors that can be added to the bill. The government CANNOT force any individual to purchase something that (a) They do not want; (b) They might not need; or (c) They may not be able to afford.

This is like forcing every American to purchase automobile insurance regardless of whether or not they even have a driver's license or a car. Especially with the threat of a fine attached to it.

The bill may not outline any provisions to enforce the fines; but that doesn't mean they can't. In some cases leaving the possible enforcement and punishment so open-ended may even be worse because while it may not specify what can be done; it also does not specify what CANNOT be done.

This ruling leads the way to possibly overturning this stupid bill and evidently, the way the Commonwealth of Virginia argued it (in terms of commerce) it must be a very well organized and presented brief because the court ruled in favor of it.