PDA

View Full Version : A constitutional lawyer on the Obamacare decision.



LWW
12-13-2010, 04:49 PM
<span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'>BRILLIANT! (http://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/from-landmark-legal-foundation-on-obamacare/470155410945)</span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Today Federal District Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare:

1. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause</span>, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise;

2. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers;</span>
and

3. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.</span>

Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama Administration and for the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that <span style='font-size: 11pt'>the rule of law and the Constitution itself still having meaning.</span> Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several amicus briefs in this case, at the request of the Commonwealth, and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.

Landmark President Mark R. Levin declared: <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"It is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry. Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad, and General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this mater. We look forward to continuing to work with him."</span></div></div>

Gee, aitch, woofie, I offered to edify each of you with his masterpiece:

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/images/readtolead/Liberty%20and%20Tyranny.jpg

If you would have taken advantage of my benevolent and generous nature you would have seen this decision coming.

Anyone want to take me up now?

LWW

Sev
12-13-2010, 08:21 PM
1.3 trillion in savings coming soon.

Qtec
12-14-2010, 02:41 AM
Wait a minute.




Is this guy maybe bias?




Mmmmmmmmmm..





I think the book cover gives it away.












"A Conservative Manifesto".

LOL

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/images/readtolead/Liberty%20and%20Tyranny.jpg


LMAO

Q

Qtec
12-14-2010, 02:43 AM
Not content with using Newsmax, Malkin, Wash Times etc as sources, now he is linking to FaceBook........LOL


Q.....OMG

LWW
12-14-2010, 03:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wait a minute.




Is this guy maybe bias?




Mmmmmmmmmm..





I think the book cover gives it away.












"A Conservative Manifesto".

LOL

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/images/readtolead/Liberty%20and%20Tyranny.jpg


LMAO

Q </div></div>

Of all of your lame posts ... this is, far and away, the lamest.

Why is it "BIAS" to have an opinion that differs with the regime and favors the original intent of the COTUS?

LWW

Qtec
12-14-2010, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals <u>who choose not to purchase health care. </u></div></div>



So when this person, who has NO MONEY or assets to speak of, has a heart attack and is operated on and spends a week in IC and the cost is $75,000, who pays?

What about a car driver who chooses not to purchase insurance? You OK with that?


Q

LWW
12-14-2010, 05:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals <u>who choose not to purchase health care. </u></div></div>



So when this person, who has NO MONEY or assets to speak of, has a heart attack and is operated on and spends a week in IC and the cost is $75,000, who pays?


Q </div></div>

The same people who pay now.

The difference is that under Obamacare there will be ever fewer places for this indigent individual to be treated.

LWW

LWW
12-14-2010, 05:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What about a car driver who chooses not to purchase insurance? You OK with that?


Q </div></div>

That is an irrelevant point.

1 - When one operates an automobile they are exercising personal choice. EVERYONE isn't forced to buy auto insurance, only those who drive a car.

2 - Requiring auto insurance is a state mandate and not a federal mandate.

3 - The requirements to maintain auto insurance has led to a legal fiasco where fewer people have liability insurance, as is typical of most gubmint operated systems.

4 - Number three is largely a result of states requiring that insurance be made available to all drivers ... no matter how hideous their driving record ... at state regulated maximum costs.

5 - Every effort to actually remove uninsured motorists from the roads in the US ... under existing law ... is met by a cacophony of leftists bleating about how this is all about insurance companies oppressing the poor.

So, in the end your argument against the constitutional case is:

1 - You don't like it.

2 - Mark Levin has a Facebook page.

Think about how wholly illogical that is.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/Snoopy.jpg


LWW

Qtec
12-14-2010, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same people who pay now. </div></div>

Come on, say it.

Q

LWW
12-14-2010, 06:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same people who pay now. </div></div>

Come on, say it.

Q </div></div>

I already did.

C'mon ... sober up.

LWW

Qtec
12-14-2010, 06:15 AM
Say it again. Is that too difficult?

Q

LWW
12-14-2010, 06:39 AM
I already did.

C'mon ... sober up.

I'm glad to make you happy this Christmas season.

LWW

eg8r
12-14-2010, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So when this person, who has NO MONEY or assets to speak of, has a heart attack and is operated on and spends a week in IC and the cost is $75,000, who pays?

</div></div>In the end I guess it is the hospital that pays. You have already said the patient did not have the money but was treated anyways which is why all the lies you guys spread about people not getting treated is all bull.

eg8r

eg8r
12-14-2010, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The difference is that under Obamacare there will be ever fewer places for this indigent individual to be treated.

</div></div>Under Obamacare this guy will be in jail if he did not buy his HC. So again, the taxpayers will be paying for it.

eg8r