Legal challenge to Obamacare

No, there really aren't such reasons. The government is constitutionally allowed to contract out for services rather than provide them directly. It does it all the time. And none of the people yelling that this is unconstitutional would yell any less loudly at the thought of Medicare for all; the vast majority would yell considerably more loudly.

Likewise, the government is constitutionally allowed to cut people a check and tell them how to spend it. It does it all the time. The government is free to raise the full cost of a program through taxes, or, as with the subsidies in this health insurance reform legislation, to choose to only raise the costs that need to be redistributed and then redistribute them. The latter choice is far and away the most sensible choice when the choice of vendor/insurer is being left up to the members of the public subject to the legislation.

Don't mistake bad policy--relying exclusively on for profit insurers to provide insurance in the market exchanges--with unconstitutional policy. Lots of bad policy is perfectly constitutional.

Almost enough to call a Constitutional Convention......

Something America has never done....

Wouldn't that be a blast......

Yeah he's not going to get five votes on this one.

I bet they are relishing the thought of this reaching the court.

Hell it wouldn't surprise me if they reached down and snatched the case from the first federal judge to hear it.....

Does anyone know what the most states to sue the federal government over some issue or another ever was? And what success rate states have in doing it?

We may still be ahead of the horses, but the jackasses are out of the barn, down the street, and one flew over the cuckoo's nest.

This.

This would wipe that smirk off his face right quick and as much as it pains me to say that about any President I would welcome it for the shits and giggles.

Unless, of course, between now and then congress starts impeaching Court justices.

Hey, he's already got successful propaganda. AND presidential hair. He's like a Kennedy, only without the smell of bourbon and shame.

Burns Raccoon and Basement Cat in '12!

The rate things have gone lately it wouldn't be too surprising, or maybe they'd find the Foster treatment is in order.

Oh, well in that case...

I hear Bill Cosby wants to be a write in.

These frivolous actions are DOA.

I really do hope that the Supreme Court gets ahold of this with haste. I'd love to see the burned bridges shove that bill so far down Obama's throat that he shits subtitles.

I highly doubt it'll get shot down completely, but I can dream. If it were up to me, I'd pitch all 1,018 pages of that God-forsaken bill.

An interesting read with some good links IMHO!

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/da...reform-make-its-way-to-the-supreme-court.html

There are links throughout to a constitutional law blog, but they don't show up as I copy the text to quote. My sense is that whatever you think of this bill (I think it's an impending disaster for those with low incomes but not sufficiently low to qualify for the applicable subsidies), you better get used to it.

The funny thing about arguing constitutional questions with a "plain meaning" approach is that you won't typically find a majority of the Court agreeing with you. IMHO.

They'll live on forever in wingnut fantasy.

In the U.S. federal courts, yeah, they're DOA. Lochner's long gone, and by post-Lochner standards, the health insurance reform bill is pretty weak tea. Courts recently have dabbled at the margins about preventing regulations under the Commerce Clause when it's genuinely questionable that commerce is involved, but they're not gonna touch a case as a Commerce Clause case when there's definitely commerce going on, not to mention definitely a problem that's national in scope that's being addressed. The non Commerce Clause "constitutional" objections to this legislation are even more laughable.

Just because legislation doesn't hew to a libertopian ideal doesn't make it unconstitutional. Just because legislation is, in some of its particulars, spectacularly dumb doesn't make it unconstitutional. Time spent challenging the constitutionality of this legislation is time wasted, time that could be better spent on lobbying to improve the legislation, whatever your political inclinations might be. Silly constitutional challenges will only get in the way of fixing this thing.

They better watch out, black jesus might go pelican brief on them.

Fixed that one for ya!

Do you ever have a fucking clue what you're talking about or do you always just go with the diarrhea that comes out of your ass. You clearly have no fucking clue what the Constitution says or means. Go have someone read it to you and explain it to you. In the 2 to 5 years it will take you to comprehend it, your idiocy won't be missed.

Edited for accuracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html

The bill as a whole isn't unconstitutional, but the political compromise that made it viable and requires insurance certainly is.

I can't wait for the government to start mandating other stuff.

Any leftist who complains when they do so should be mandated to commit suicide in response.

In an effort to save the Auto Industry, Congress today passed a bill mandating that everyone buy a GM, Ford, or Chrysler vehicle by the end of the year. Those not doing so will be assessed penalties of up to 25% of their annual income.

The sad thing is that, even if they did that, there are a large number of party drones who would figure out a way of defending it. (The same party drones who would be the first and the loudest to denounce it if the Republicans did it.)

And there are such drones bowing down before the crooks on both sides of the aisle...

Health care is now a right.

And you will be fined if you don't exercise that right.

Maybe they will soon start fining people who don't have guns!

\
KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!

Nope. They will be charging extra premiums for those. (guns)

I'd also like to add that I believe the Fourth Amendment protects me from any agent of the federal government gaining access to my medical records without probable cause.

^^^ I'm sure that they have decided that this bill grants blanket probable cause.