PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality of Obamacare


NateR
11-14-2011, 07:51 PM
http://aclj.org/obamacare/brief-supreme-court-reject-obama-unconstitutional-law

The Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will consider whether ObamaCare is constitutional. For more than a year-and-a-half, the ACLJ has battled ObamaCare in the courts. We knew from the very start that this law was bad for America. It is the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and uses our tax dollars to do it. The law is a government mandate that individuals purchase a product, and it gives the government control of our health care decisions.

Now is the decisive moment to act in order to stop ObamaCare. Over 100 Members of Congress have signed on to the ACLJ’s amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to reject ObamaCare and declare it unconstitutional. We need you to add your name now and to encourage others to sign as well.

Supreme Court Brief to Declare Obama’s Health Care Law Unconstitutional (http://aclj.org/obamacare/brief-supreme-court-reject-obama-unconstitutional-law)

To: The Supreme Court of the United States of America

ObamaCare fails the American people. It represents a government-run health care system, the government controlling our health care decisions, and penalizes Americans who choose not to participate. The tax dollars that ObamaCare directs to abortion will bring about the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. This law contradicts the will of the American people. I stand with the ACLJ and over 100 Members of Congress in urging you to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional.

You don't have to donate any money in order to sign the petition; but you can donate in order to help cover the legal fees that will be necessary in order to defeat Obamacare once and for all.

Neezar
11-15-2011, 12:22 AM
I hope this law doesn't pass.

NateR
11-15-2011, 02:38 AM
Unfortunately, the law has already passed, but I don't think it goes into effect completely until 2014. So, hopefully it can be struck down long before then.

flo
11-15-2011, 07:53 AM
Kagan needs to recuse herself. (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-tribe-day-obamacare-passed-i-hear-they-have-votes-larry-simply-amazing)

Neezar
11-15-2011, 12:00 PM
Unfortunately, the law has already passed, but I don't think it goes into effect completely until 2014. So, hopefully it can be struck down long before then.

Excuse me! I'm trying to be in denial. :angry:





:laugh:

Neezar
11-15-2011, 12:05 PM
I heard something disturbing on a talk show. I'm not sure if it is in this law or another. But it basically will govern the amounts that can be awarded in malpractice suits. The amount awarded will be based on the plantiff's salary. :unsure-1: They used this for an example, if a child/infant dies by malpractice and the mom is a stay-at-home mom then she would recieve something like $90,000. Same scenario happens to the child/infant, and the mom is a medical professional then she would get millions.

:scared0015:


THAT is f'd up.

CAVEMAN
11-15-2011, 06:13 PM
If the Supreme Court decides that Obamacare is Constitutional, there will be no limit to the amount of socialist laws that will follow. Sign the petition, folks!

Play The Man
11-15-2011, 11:10 PM
I heard something disturbing on a talk show. I'm not sure if it is in this law or another. But it basically will govern the amounts that can be awarded in malpractice suits. The amount awarded will be based on the plantiff's salary. :unsure-1: They used this for an example, if a child/infant dies by malpractice and the mom is a stay-at-home mom then she would recieve something like $90,000. Same scenario happens to the child/infant, and the mom is a medical professional then she would get millions.

:scared0015:


THAT is f'd up.

21st-Century quasi-wergeld :laugh:

flo
11-16-2011, 02:11 AM
21st-Century quasi-wergeld :laugh:

Even after I googled it I couldn't understand it.

:fryingpan:

Bonnie
11-16-2011, 04:44 AM
Even after I googled it I couldn't understand it.

:fryingpan:

I think he loves making us look this stuff up! :laugh: The definition for wergeld (below) goes to the example in Neezy's post of how much money the two women would be compensated for their loss. Their "rank" or "status" would determine the amount/value of their compensation.

wer·geld (wûrgld) also wer·gild or were·gild (-gld)
n. - In Anglo-Saxon and Germanic law, a price set upon a person's life on the basis of rank and paid as compensation by the family of a slayer to the kindred or lord of a slain person to free the culprit of further punishment or obligation and to prevent a blood feud.

flo
11-16-2011, 09:57 AM
I think he loves making us look this stuff up! :laugh: The definition for wergeld (below) goes to the example in Neezy's post of how much money the two women would be compensated for their loss. Their "rank" or "status" would determine the amount/value of their compensation.

Hee hee, thanks Lucy, I didn't get it the first go around! :wacko:

Tyburn
12-01-2011, 09:06 PM
I better not sign the petition...even if I aggree its bollox...being that I am not American it would be most...unfair...and rude.

I think the United States has made it quite clear they do not wish English dictatorials on their circumstances in the past.


...but...just for the record...had you guys not pushed us out the door, this would never have happened to you :tongue0011::laugh: (you'd probably have the National Health Service instead :unsure-1: but at least it doesnt force you to do anything other then pay higher taxes :Whistle::ashamed::laugh: )

Neezar
04-19-2012, 02:39 PM
Trump Explains Dumbo Care



Let me get this straight . . ..We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't.
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a Dumbo President (who smokes)
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

:laugh:

County Mike
04-19-2012, 02:52 PM
Well said Mr. Trump.

rearnakedchoke
04-19-2012, 03:07 PM
obamacare may not be the best model for universal health care, but it would be a step in the right direction for the US ... a perfect model won't be created right off the bat, but given time to evolve, the program will be to the benefit of the country ... i am sure barack will iron out some of the wrinkles in his second term ....

flo
04-19-2012, 07:02 PM
obamacare may not be the best model for universal health care, but it would be a step in the right direction for the US ... a perfect model won't be created right off the bat, but given time to evolve, the program will be to the benefit of the country ... i am sure barack will iron out some of the wrinkles in his second term ....

:laugh:

Nice try, rnc!

rearnakedchoke
04-19-2012, 08:19 PM
:laugh:

Nice try, rnc!

:Whistle:

lol

rearnakedchoke
04-19-2012, 08:25 PM
:laugh:

Nice try, rnc!

really though .. imo a universal health care program is very important for developed nations .. sure, you are going to say, the US didn't become the strongest nation by having it or you have gotten this far without it .. but it doesn't mean you can't be better ... do i like the obama model? not really, i think ours works great ... we don't have to buy insurance .... it is built into our tax dollars .. there is still the option of going to private clinics if you want .. and if you have insurance through work, you get certain upgrades etc ... you get a healthcard and you show it when you go to the hospital or doctor .. it doesn't cover prescriptions or dental ... but if you have a good insurance through work, that covers it ...

Neezar
04-20-2012, 06:06 PM
really though .. imo a universal health care program is very important for developed nations .. sure, you are going to say, the US didn't become the strongest nation by having it or you have gotten this far without it .. but it doesn't mean you can't be better ... do i like the obama model? not really, i think ours works great ... we don't have to buy insurance .... it is built into our tax dollars .. there is still the option of going to private clinics if you want .. and if you have insurance through work, you get certain upgrades etc ... you get a healthcard and you show it when you go to the hospital or doctor .. it doesn't cover prescriptions or dental ... but if you have a good insurance through work, that covers it ...

Why don't you let the government choose your car insurance and rates for you? They can go ahead and take that out of your taxes for you, too.

Maybe they could provide my utilities for me, too and take that out of my taxes. I hate sending that bitch in every month. While they are at it, they need to go ahead tell me the limit that I should use/not use each month to be considered a good citizen by conserving energy.

Neezar
04-20-2012, 06:09 PM
really though .. imo a universal health care program is very important for developed nations .. sure, you are going to say, the US didn't become the strongest nation by having it or you have gotten this far without it .. but it doesn't mean you can't be better ... do i like the obama model? not really, i think ours works great ... we don't have to buy insurance .... it is built into our tax dollars .. there is still the option of going to private clinics if you want .. and if you have insurance through work, you get certain upgrades etc ... you get a healthcard and you show it when you go to the hospital or doctor .. it doesn't cover prescriptions or dental ... but if you have a good insurance through work, that covers it ...

Why do you believe that a univeral health care program is important?

We already have medicaid and medicare for people who can't afford insurance.

NateR
04-20-2012, 11:18 PM
really though .. imo a universal health care program is very important for developed nations .. sure, you are going to say, the US didn't become the strongest nation by having it or you have gotten this far without it .. but it doesn't mean you can't be better ... do i like the obama model? not really, i think ours works great ... we don't have to buy insurance .... it is built into our tax dollars .. there is still the option of going to private clinics if you want .. and if you have insurance through work, you get certain upgrades etc ... you get a healthcard and you show it when you go to the hospital or doctor .. it doesn't cover prescriptions or dental ... but if you have a good insurance through work, that covers it ...

So your healthcare system "works great" but you still need to purchase private insurance if you want everything covered? Doesn't sound like it works that good to me.

Anyways, the healthcare debate is secondary to the real issue here: Does the US government have the right to require private citizens to purchase a product? If the answer is yes, then where does that end? Can the government then require everyone to switch over to compact florescent light bulbs, or maybe even require all of its citizens to trade in their cars and trucks for hybrids?

Even if this healthcare law was not a total disaster, would surrendering our freedom to choose for ourselves whether we want medical insurance be worth the trade off? If you say yes, then I don't think you understand the concept of freedom.

J.B.
04-20-2012, 11:26 PM
Why is my health the responsibility of anybody but myself?

Don't get me wrong, with the cost of "health care", we are all better off dead.

Tyburn
04-22-2012, 07:23 PM
I don't think you understand the concept of freedom.

Understand the concept of Freedom...or the concept of the American Constitution?

Total Freedom is anarchy, and contrary what many Americans say, the Constitution doesnt promote that. Equally so, the Constitution is reasonably clear with its boundaries on Government interaction...forcing the whole population to do anything except pay taxes, and possibly vote, should be beyond the control of the Federal Government...and aruguably beyond the control of the State Government.

The first issue for many Americans is their inability to separate the two systems of Government, and their miscalculation on putting emphasis on Federal over State. Rather then thinking of ONE Government and many Councils...they oughta be thinking Fifty odd Governments, and a Council representing all of those individual Governments. Your rules and laws should come from the State...the Federal Governments job is to manage the State, Represent the collective to the international community, and provide protection, with force where needed...they also are allowed to meddle in things like Money, and things that physically cross state boarders...for example Transport. Beyond that, a technical interpretation says that they should not be doing very much...earlier in your History they didnt even meet every day...one has to ask what a council whose job is so far removed from the everyday life of people, is actually conveneing so often about...its things like this Health Care reform, which, litterally it shouldnt even be discussing

The Second Issue for Americans is the ideal that Freedom, even constitutionally speaking, doesnt mean, and never did, mean freedom to do anything at all. You do not live in a free country, or else you wouldnt pay taxes. The true Freedom is from the possible tyrany of large scale Government and Freedom under GOD to be able to express yourself and worship as you choose. It is NOT freedom from the law, it is NOT Freedom of Religion, and it doesnt apply to criminals :laugh:

The laws should be made and maintained on a State to State Level, this is small scale Government...incidently, had your forefathers known that your bipartisanship would begin to equal the sort of division seen in Christondom, they may well have written that the President MUST be independant....as some of your earlier Presidents were...imagine, a man unable to be pigeon holed into an obvious party...imagine how suddenly the votes would matter a lot more, and any veto would be a moral judgement, not a petty point score of party politics.

I have to warn you that if you look back over three hundred years, your constitution is being viewed in a different and part false light by the majority of people, and your politics is far to polarized to be of benefit to the individual citizenry...ive seen it as much on this forum, where party lines generally shouldnt matter...but do...its like a silent civil war constantly between democrats and republicans. I really dont think thats what George Washington had in mind, long term...but you have larger problems...if your Supreme Court can rule that this is constitutional, then you have to ask yourself, have they strayed from the constitution too far...and if so...who holds them to account? In an institution where political preferences are at the forethought of any appointment, all you do is move the congressional battles into a real life Court....so the Obamarites have won in congress...can the Judges who are sworne in allegience by their appointment, do his bidding, or not.

I have to say, this is the only situation I've known in history where a document can be rewritten pragmatically without the words changing. In every other case, constitutions are overturned by revolution and replaced. Noone has replaced the constitution. The society has managed to keep hold of the original document, but subvert it by changing the paradigmn. How THAT happened, without complete revolution I dont know...when did Americans collectively forget and collectively aggree on this new meaning? I would have guessed the World War...except America didnt loose enough men proportionately to have wiped out a zeitgeist...I Cant answer that question, and its bugging me. So I am asking those who understand the constitution...When did this problem begin...where can you say, before this point we adhered to the original pragmatics of the document...because only then can you peacefull subvert it back again...which, short of a revolution you probably cant do now...and you wouldnt want to do that, because that would mean having to physically reject and rewrite a document that isnt at fault. I say there is nothing wrong with the American Consitution, The Problem is with the American People. The State Governments need a kick up the arse, and the Federal Government needs to be reigned in...

...and if you want to make it more perfect, NEVER ellect a President who isnt Independant, who hasnt served at least three to five years in the military, and make damn sure he is a Christian, not just one in lips, but one in heart. Make sure all your Supreme Court Judges are Christian, and Constitutionalists...and give congress a three day working week in washington outside of the President and court, and let them spend the rest of the time back where they belong, with their constituents, at a grass roots, local level. That way your Great Nation will live up to what I truely believe are Great Foundations. Your slipping now, dont fall.

rearnakedchoke
04-23-2012, 01:51 PM
So your healthcare system "works great" but you still need to purchase private insurance if you want everything covered? Doesn't sound like it works that good to me.

Anyways, the healthcare debate is secondary to the real issue here: Does the US government have the right to require private citizens to purchase a product? If the answer is yes, then where does that end? Can the government then require everyone to switch over to compact florescent light bulbs, or maybe even require all of its citizens to trade in their cars and trucks for hybrids?

Even if this healthcare law was not a total disaster, would surrendering our freedom to choose for ourselves whether we want medical insurance be worth the trade off? If you say yes, then I don't think you understand the concept of freedom.

no, i don't need to purchase anything .. i have insurance through work, so i just get things upgraded if i want ... if i didn't have a job, i'd still have healthcare available to me the same as everyone else ...

Neezar
04-23-2012, 03:03 PM
no, i don't need to purchase anything .. i have insurance through work, so i just get things upgraded if i want ... if i didn't have a job, i'd still have healthcare available to me the same as everyone else ...

So do people here. Already. Free. All you have to do is sign up. Your choice.

rockdawg21
04-23-2012, 08:22 PM
Unbelievable this has to go to the Supreme Court for its' Constitutionality. It shouldn't have went through Congress in the first place.

J.B.
04-24-2012, 10:31 PM
It was just getting good and you guys had to break it up like Mazzagati in Lesnar/Mir 1....

I love an old school Nate vs Dave battle!

:laugh: