Kansas caves on HCR

Here is the link>> www.kake.com...

and a little snip..

Friday, April 2, 2010

The following statement is by Attorney General Steve Six:

The attorney general’s office has completed its legal review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Based on that extensive analysis, I do not believe that Kansas can successfully challenge the law. Our review did not reveal any constitutional defects, and thus it would not be legally or fiscally responsible to pursue this litigation.

Does this mean that we are stuck with it here in Kansas or are the othere AG's that are filing from the other states be able to void the bill for all states ?
I would like a little input from someone that understands this process .

It truly depends on the course that the AGs take in attacking the legality of the law. It could mean a sweeping repeal of the law, or at least the sections that are found to violate the Constitution. OR... it could be a complete waste of time and money and have absoutely no effect whatsoever. Since I have not had the pleasure of viewing any of the legal briefs being prepared in the case, I can't offer a critique.

My personal opinion is that the law is a complete violation of the Constitution. But... I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, so my opinion doesn't mean a thing!

reply to post by Grayelf2009


Instead of waiting until the states move on this fiasco known as the "health care Bill", why not take matters into your own hands and refuse to comply, based on your right to informed consent. The doctrine of informed consent is a long held doctrine in American Jurisprudence, and to give just one example of The Supreme Courts view on this then check out Cruzan v. Director MDH, where the SCOTUS not only upheld states rights, but individual rights as well, although they did clarify with individuals, that it was competent people who had the right to refuse medical service, even if that refusal meant certain death. If people have the right to do that, they certainly have the right to refuse health insurance, and Cruzan is strong case law towards supporting any individuals assertion that this HCR Bill is unconstitutional on the grounds it violates a persons right to informed consent.

reply to post by Grayelf2009


Yes, it means, just like most right-wing talking points, that the notion/wish/hope/prayer that this bill is somehow unconstitutional is patently false.

Elections have consequences. The whiny sour grapes has got to stop, it's getting embarrassing and potentially dangerous. Soon enough, one of these pussified Timothy McVeigh wannabes is going to become more than just an admirer, and become a traitorous murdering copycat.

Best,
Skunknuts

wow, the madness never ends. a desperate lady being served hot coffee in her car at mcdonalds can have hot coffee fall in her lap and win a multimillion dollar law suite, but this man cannot find one falicy in the legislation. wow, just owe wow!

reply to post by Grayelf2009


As long as the Supreme Court strikes down parts or all of it as unconstitutional, the ruling would apply to all states.

As for Steve Six, the Kansas Attorney General, well, he's a Democrat, as is the governor. Its not a surprise that they'd drop any possibility of a lawsuit. Party first.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
wow, the madness never ends. a desperate lady being served hot coffee in her car at mcdonalds can have hot coffee fall in her lap and win a multimillion dollar law suite, but this man cannot find one falicy in the legislation

. wow, just owe wow!

That reminds me of something. In countries that are smart enough to have universal healthcare, the liability exposure for many things is sharply decreased. For instance, car insurance rates are lower, as medical liability is moot. Just doing my part to make your comment relevant to the healthcare issue.

Best,
Skunknuts

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Grayelf2009

 

As long as the Supreme Court strikes down parts or all of it as unconstitutional, the ruling would apply to all states.

As for Steve Six, the Kansas Attorney General, well, he's a Democrat, as is the governor. Its not a surprise that they'd drop any possibility of a lawsuit. Party first.

Um, saving millions of taxpayer dollars by not pursuing a fruitless unjustified claim is the definition of putting his state first. Choosing the most unqualified vice presidential candidate ever in an attempt to bolster the electoral chances of an antiquated cancer survivor is the epitome of party-first mentality. All the more Orwellian considering the GOPs chosen slogan of 'country first,' as well as the damage of releasing the scourge of that woman upon us.

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 4/5/2010 by skunknuts]

reply to post by skunknuts


I have still yet to find anywhere in Article 1 (or in any other part of the Constitution) where the Federal, State or Local Government has the authority to require by law the purchase of any tangible item or service in order to be a law abiding citizen. I have, however, found many parts that would strongly imply that they cannot.

But by all means, please enlighten me as to which enumerated power grants such a condition of compulsory servitude for the citizenry.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If people have the right to do that, they certainly have the right to refuse health insurance, and Cruzan is strong case law towards supporting any individuals assertion that this HCR Bill is unconstitutional on the grounds it violates a persons right to informed consent.

I'm curious... is there a legal difference between refusing treatment based on informed consent, and being forced to pay for the treatment? Because The SCOTUS might see them as two different things.

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by Grayelf2009

 

Yes, it means, just like most right-wing talking points, that the notion/wish/hope/prayer that this bill is somehow unconstitutional is patently false.

Elections have consequences. The whiny sour grapes has got to stop, it's getting embarrassing and potentially dangerous. Soon enough, one of these pussified Timothy McVeigh wannabes is going to become more than just an admirer, and become a traitorous murdering copycat.

Best,
Skunknuts

Get a grip, TROLL!

Last time I checked, "Consequences" didn't involve abrogating the Constitution and declaring oneself king! The role of "president" comes with SPECIFIC legal constraints. Your boy doesn't get it - yet! But he will! He'll certainly get it, in the end!

Great, just more confirmation that my home state sucks.

%&(+@#?/*^)!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by krunchy

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If people have the right to do that, they certainly have the right to refuse health insurance, and Cruzan is strong case law towards supporting any individuals assertion that this HCR Bill is unconstitutional on the grounds it violates a persons right to informed consent.

I'm curious... is there a legal difference between refusing treatment based on informed consent, and being forced to pay for the treatment? Because The SCOTUS might see them as two different things.

This, of course, is the sneaky way in which Congress passed this Bill by tasking the IRS to handle the dissenters. As long as you are a taxpayer as defined by Title 26 of the IRC, then you are subject to the whims of the IRS. Of course, if one is willing to read more than 2000 pages of a health care Bill, why stop there, and why not read the IRC as well and find out for yourself if you are one who has been statutorily defined as a taxpayer.

No one will force you to pay anything, the IRS will simply begin by either deducting it from any refund owed, or if no refund is owed then they will bill that taxpayer, and attempting to fight the health care Bill by entering a tax court to argue fundamental rights not acknowledge by that court won't help at all. A tax court can not offer any remedy for your redress of grievances, and would not be the proper court of jurisdiction to challenge the Constitutionality of the HCR Bill.

If you are a taxpayer as specifically defined by USC CODE: Title 26 7701 (a) 14, then you are indeed liable for any fines imposed on you due to lack of acceptable health insurance. Ever wonder what made you a statutorily defined taxpayer? Well your own liability of course! Ever wonder what made you liable for the so called "Personal Income Tax" to begin with? Find the Section in the Internal Revenue Code that makes you liable for the tax, if you can. First it would be good to know that subject of the tax you might think you are liable for. What is the subject of the so called "Personal Income Tax"? I am not sure anyone can answer that question and find any Section of the code to back them up.

It is hard to imagine where the SCOTUS would rule that a person has the right to refuse medical service but must pay for it anyway. I wouldn't even know where to look to find any precedent that they might be able to rely on to make such an absurd assertion, (no offense to you, I'm just saying that's all), and it is not in The Courts nature to invent law that would justify abrogating a persons right. While SCOTUS does look hard to see how any legislation being challenged did indeed work within the bounds of Constitutional restraints, the lawyers defending this legislation will have to a lot of dazzling with B.S., because it is doubtful they have enough brilliance to convince the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to mandate people purchase private health insurance policies.

If a person refuses medical service, then why should they pay for it? Either the health insurance being mandated has to be accepted after informed consent, and that acceptance would be your voluntary purchase of the policy, or there was no contract obligating you to any debt. I am not exactly sure what you mean, but I suspect you are wondering what sort of legal B.S. can they come up with to shoot our rights down, and for the most part, Dred Scot being a huge exception, they lean towards upholding the rights of an individual.



[edit on 5-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

What about those people who are religiously opposed to this bill like Christian Scientists? How is that going to work?

If anybody has follow up the amendment to the HCR after been passed, Obama signed into effect that he will make Medicaid the biggest insurer for the poor.

What does that means? well it means that the whore states that will comply with it, will receive 100% coverage from the federal government at least until 2017, when then the states will be left to raise taxes to cover after the Federal government start to withdraw the coverage.

This will look attractive for many states struggling with their deficits and will give them an excuse to raise taxes in the future and blame it on the Federal government cut in federal help.

Well it seems that many states are nothing but whores when it comes to the hand outs of the federal government

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by skunknuts

 

I have still yet to find anywhere in Article 1 (or in any other part of the Constitution) where the Federal, State or Local Government has the authority to require by law the purchase of any tangible item or service in order to be a law abiding citizen. I have, however, found many parts that would strongly imply that they cannot.

But by all means, please enlighten me as to which enumerated power grants such a condition of compulsory servitude for the citizenry.

Are you required to carry auto insurance in your State?

Originally posted by damwel

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by skunknuts

 

I have still yet to find anywhere in Article 1 (or in any other part of the Constitution) where the Federal, State or Local Government has the authority to require by law the purchase of any tangible item or service in order to be a law abiding citizen. I have, however, found many parts that would strongly imply that they cannot.

But by all means, please enlighten me as to which enumerated power grants such a condition of compulsory servitude for the citizenry.

Are you required to carry auto insurance in your State?

States are not restricted by Constitution in the same fashion the federal government is. Further, each state has a DMV where people go to voluntarily to register their car, where the bill of sale of the car is transferred immediately to the DMV and upon registration a title is offered in exchange, and then these same people ask for a license to drive. If you are going to ask the state permission to drive, it shouldn't be any surprise they will tell you to get auto insurance some point down the road, and if you don't want to play that game then you can't be a member of the DMV club any longer. Of course, when the DMV asserts that "driving is a privilege and not a right", has any one ever asked by what authority they make such claim? It's not like that was so fifty years ago, it certainly wasn't so at the advent of the automobile and there sure as hell wasn't any Department of Horse and Buggy's before there was a DMV.

The point is, whatever authority is not clearly lined out for the federal government are authorities either reserved for the state or the people.

One by one...this is what each state will do.

I have been saying that his is all just political trash talk. All the AGs filling suits know they are never going to go through with them. It's just that the republican leadership told them to...so they did...just to make a show of it.

It will never see the courts...but they successfully bought a lot of votes by making a show like they were going to do something. But those votes probably would of gone to them anyway....so overall...nothing really happened.

Originally posted by damwel
Are you required to carry auto insurance in your State?

In most, if not all states, you do...if you own a vehicle. There's no law that says you *must* own a vehicle and, obviously, if you choose not to own a vehicle, you do not have to purchase auto insurance.

Regardless, the auto insurance issue doesn't really help the argument of the federal government. As it stands, each state has broad authority to regulate the auto insurance required within its borders and so the states are allowed to exercise their 10th amendment rights. Health care? Not so much.

Another SCOTUS ruling which could prove very troublesome for all those pricey "Constitutional scholars" who keep insisting the HCR Bill is perfectly legal, is U.S. v Lopez, where the Court flat out rejected Congresses Commerce Clause argument for a particular federal gun law.

In the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A) (1988 ed., Supp. V). The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivering the opinion.