Shutdown

[mrsleeve]

I'll indulge you.

IF the individual mandate has been ruled on and considered constitutional, what else could they possibly rule on to make Obamacare unconstitutional?

well to start with as the law was written a mandate from congress that people MUST buy something or pay a fine is unconstitutional under the commerce clause (as the law was written). Though it was up held as constitutional if the penalty was a TAX and levied under the Congresses tax and spend powers. This sets a precedent of being able to tax us for ANYTHING, slippery slope is getting a little bit steep too.

It seems I had missed the decision of the SCOTUS ordered rehearing of Liberty law schools appeal in 4th circuit. That was back in july of this year, and to be honest I must have missed or just plain forgotten that with the ruling last year the SCOTUS rejected all other pending appeals. I have been way too busy to keep up like I really should have *eats crow*

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” - Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s majority opinion.


I can see this opening up a big can of worms for other things the ruling class wish to "mandate" us citizens do.



Doom: Was that H/C premium rate of your parents their portion of a employer provided H/C plan with the employer paying the rest??? If so is your fathers employer dropping the benefit and dumping your family into the 0 Care exchanges????

[BraveUlysses]

apparently you're too lazy to click the link? or supply contradictory facts?

There are no facts to contradict. Just another blog blaming Obama for one more thing.

[Dozyproductions]

A single healthy person can barely get that price with any low deductible. Heck mine alone would of been %600 of that. I need to figure my figures now though from the ACA.

[MF DOOM]

I call bullshit on this. If he paid $250 a month for a family it was shitty insurance with a super high deductible that only covered meniscus tears from leprechaun fighting. $1000 a month is the going rate for a reasonable family plan of someone in there mid 30s. Ask me how I know.

Yes, go ahead and call bullshit on something you know nothing about.

[2761377]

Im sure whatever hate blog you found this at is a reliable source of facts...

apparently you're too lazy to click the link? or supply contradictory facts?

[z31maniac]

Its not my fault you didnt know how or why MT had a speed limit in the 1st place, and your the one who called me out on it. Just merely pointing out that you were not as well informed as you thought you were. AGAIN

And where am I mistaken about the SCOTUS ruling, they only ruled on the Individual mandate, not the whole law, and we have at least 1 federal judge that tossed the whole thing out as unconstitutional, so there are more cases based on the whole law not just a small portion of it working their way though the system. (Unless I missed where those have been stalled or refused by the higher courts)

I'll indulge you.

IF the individual mandate has been ruled on and considered constitutional, what else could they possibly rule on to make Obamacare unconstitutional?

[herbivor]

Heres a good one. Had a talk with my dad the other day. Insurance for him, his wife, and three kids was $250 a month. Now theres this affordable care act, right? His insurance is now $1k a month. thats up 400%. so the break down is this: Affordable care act.

sounds like a smoking deal to me. And we have the right to a trial so if we get fined for not having health care is it fightable? or did they forget about that right too?

I call bullshit on this. If he paid $250 a month for a family it was shitty insurance with a super high deductible that only covered meniscus tears from leprechaun fighting. $1000 a month is the going rate for a reasonable family plan of someone in there mid 30s. Ask me how I know.

[mrsleeve]

Its not my fault you didnt know how or why MT had a speed limit in the 1st place, and your the one who called me out on it. Just merely pointing out that you were not as well informed as you thought you were. AGAIN

And where am I mistaken about the SCOTUS ruling, they only ruled on the Individual mandate, not the whole law, and we have at least 1 federal judge that tossed the whole thing out as unconstitutional, so there are more cases based on the whole law not just a small portion of it working their way though the system. (Unless I missed where those have been stalled or refused by the higher courts)

[BraveUlysses]

Well this still assumes that the ACA is constitutional in the 1st place. The SCOTUS has not ruled on this yet, only the Tax penalty portion of the individual mandate, which also was not ruled constitutional or not, only that the Govt has the authority to tax for what ever they wish.


If there has been another SCOTUS ruling that I have not been aware of please let me know


While yes the MT Courts did make the final ruling that did in fact put the final nail in the coffin and killed the more modern law in the 90's, The Feds had been threatening to with hold Highway dollars if the state did not succumb to their will for a while as well again. I was referring to pre 1974 though



http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/10/us...n-montana.html

Keep moving those goal posts

[nando]

Im sure whatever hate blog you found this at is a reliable source of facts...

while at another site, i read this regarding camping in the Eastern Sierra-

"Ok, called the company direct that is running almost all of the campgrounds in the Eastern Sierra. They told me that they have a DIRECT ORDER from the WHITE HOUSE to close all of their campgrounds, even though the Government does not run them. They have leased the campgrounds and paid a large fee to do so. They are really upset and told me that they will sue! Good luck trying to sue this Government"

scholarly rectitude requires further research- i got on the website of the company referred to and found that is their appreciation of the situation.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html

so we have Our Dear Leader making it as painful as possible for people who otherwise couldn't care less about a shutdown government. This is a gratuitous, probably actionable abrogation of a contract. imagine those people counting on a camping vacation being denied by the Prez. All In For The Win democraps.

brief synopsis of post tilte-INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: <H4 sab="168">(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; <H4 sab="171">(2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; <H4 sab="173">(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and <H4 sab="176">(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498

</H4></H4></H4></H4>

[mrsleeve]

Well this still assumes that the ACA is constitutional in the 1st place. The SCOTUS has not ruled on this yet, only the Tax penalty portion of the individual mandate, which also was not ruled constitutional or not, only that the Govt has the authority to tax for what ever they wish.


If there has been another SCOTUS ruling that I have not been aware of please let me know


While yes the MT Courts did make the final ruling that did in fact put the final nail in the coffin and killed the more modern law in the 90's, The Feds had been threatening to with hold Highway dollars if the state did not succumb to their will for a while as well again. I was referring to pre 1974 though

Montana highways never had a daytime speed limit until 1974, when the Federal Government ordered all states to post one of 55 m.p.h. as a fuel conservation measure. Few laws have ever been so despised, and when given the choice of increasing the limit to 65 m.p.h., the state took it up.

Only after Federal officials threatened to withhold highway funds did the state enact the $5 speeding ticket.

''The only reason we've got any speed limit at all is Federal blackmail, pure and simple,'' said J. D. Lynch, a state senator from Butte who has thundered for years against Federal interference with Montanans' propensity for fast driving. Ticket for Wasting a Resource

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/10/us...n-montana.html

[2761377]

intentional infliction of emotional distress

while at another site, i read this regarding camping in the Eastern Sierra-

"Ok, called the company direct that is running almost all of the campgrounds in the Eastern Sierra. They told me that they have a DIRECT ORDER from the WHITE HOUSE to close all of their campgrounds, even though the Government does not run them. They have leased the campgrounds and paid a large fee to do so. They are really upset and told me that they will sue! Good luck trying to sue this Government"

scholarly rectitude requires further research- i got on the website of the company referred to and found that is their appreciation of the situation.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html

so we have Our Dear Leader making it as painful as possible for people who otherwise couldn't care less about a shutdown government. This is a gratuitous, probably actionable abrogation of a contract. imagine those people counting on a camping vacation being denied by the Prez. All In For The Win democraps.

brief synopsis of post tilte-INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: <H4 sab="168">(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; <H4 sab="171">(2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; <H4 sab="173">(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and <H4 sab="176">(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498

</H4></H4></H4></H4>

[BraveUlysses]

why cant they under the 9th and 10th, I dont recall the Feds and health care being part of the powers expressly granted to them.....

Granted its pointless even if it would hold some weight, the feds would find some other way to make them capitulate, like removing or at the very least threatening to with hold necessary funding for other things. Just like they did to get the legal Drinking limit down from .1 to .08 across the board, MT to give up its No speed limit, and many other things.

Nullification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29

read the first line.

---

Secondly, Montana's supreme court overturned that law because it was poorly written.

[mrsleeve]

This is another meaningless circle jerk law passed by SC. States cannot do this.

why cant they under the 9th and 10th, I dont recall the Feds and health care being part of the powers expressly granted to them.....

Granted its pointless even if it would hold some weight, the feds would find some other way to make them capitulate, like removing or at the very least threatening to with hold necessary funding for other things. Just like they did to get the legal Drinking limit down from .1 to .08 across the board, MT to give up its No speed limit, and many other things.

[nando]

well, they can pass it - but it doesn't mean anything.