District judge: Obamacare unconstitutional

View previous topic View next topic Go down

District judge: Obamacare unconstitutional

Post  John T. Ford on Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:00 pm

Two Federal Judges have already ruled in favor of Obamacare being Constitutional. These two judges were liberal judge appointees by Clinton.

Now, you have a Bush appointed judge, U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rule correctly that Obamacare is unConstitutional. This is a clear example of how interpreting the Constitution comes down party lines.

Liberals judges believe in legislating from the bench while Conservatives still believe in strictly interpretating the law, not legislating it.

The Constitution of the United States of America is very clear for even the layman to understand.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FORCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PURCHASE ANYTHING!

This is what makes Obamacare both unConstitutional and illegal. Obama's socialist dictatorship will never come to pass. Thank God for conservative judges who will still up hold the Constitution.

Another clear example of how antiquated and dangerous liberal thinking is for this Country, our Freedoms and our Liberties. All liberals need to be voted out, including socialist democRATS and RINO's
avatar
John T. Ford

Posts : 166
Join date : 2010-12-13
Location : East Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: District judge: Obamacare unconstitutional

Post  LittleSouthernMama on Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:56 pm

but...but...but...John...i NEED the government to put gas in my car and tell me i can't have salted food in a restaurant, don't i? Rolling Eyes if the government doesn't take over soon, i may keep making decisions for myself and my family based on sound intellect, research, and thorough investigation....then where will i be? Question
avatar
LittleSouthernMama

Posts : 95
Join date : 2010-12-13
Location : Hotbed of Conservative Thought

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: District judge: Obamacare unconstitutional

Post  Dick on Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:25 pm

If you simply change the language from "penalty for those not purchasing healthcare" to "A baseline tax of $x will be applied to everyone. You will be exempt from this tax if you purchase healthcare insurance."

Of course, this is transparently the same thing, couched in different words.

Here is the heart of the matter, in an easy to understand example:
Let's say that I don't have a vehicle and refuse to use any form of road. I am sufficient on my own land. Do I have a right to refuse to pay a portion of my taxes, since the government is using those dollars for something I abhor and do not use? Currently, I will pay the same amount of taxes regardless of whether or not I use the road. The government is requiring me to purchase roads.

Pretty much any dollar I give to the government is a requirement to purchase something, whether I use it or not.

Let's say that the healthcare bill is declared unconstitutional on these grounds. This will set a precedent for many other cases. Lawyers will be able to apply this idea to dangerous legal places. They are very good at this sort of thing!

When it comes down to it, healthcare has become wildly unaffordable, with doctors getting moderate pay...but hospital boards and administrative pay getting ridiculous. Insurance companies already do the dirtiest of things, ditching patients in dire condition over silly technicalities.

The free market has earned us better technology, but left us unprotected from the wolves in skyscrapers who don't see any patients-only the bottom line. We are left with local monopolies and price collusion. Insurance companies have rigged the plans and premiums so that rising prices on the operating table result in rising profits for the insurance company.

The bill is a thick novel, read in part by each writing committee. There are countless statutes in the bill that scare the public. Each statute is placed there in order to prevent some financial abuse in the healthcare system. As with any large document(try this with the Bible, for instance), you can take small pieces and quote them individually-and make the whole thing look bad.

Who is it that has a financial interest in this bill? It isn't greedy skyscraper insurance. It isn't the hospital CEO that gets multimillion dollar severance pay. It isn't the pharm VP with his fleet of BMWs. It isn't the lobbyists that get paid by these guys(who do you think those lobbyists support?) It is the working class that has the interest in this bill.

Overall, a bill was long overdue. It isn't perfect, but there is plenty of time to change a few things.

Dick

Posts : 10
Join date : 2010-12-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: District judge: Obamacare unconstitutional

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum