Va. judge dismisses challenge to Obama health care

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed Liberty University's lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's new federal health care law, declaring that a provision requiring most individuals to obtain insurance is constitutional.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon in Lynchburg is the second court decision upholding the law, following one in Michigan in October. University law school dean Mathew Staver said in a telephone interview that he will promptly appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond.

Attorneys general from several states have filed another lawsuit in Florida, and a separate challenge by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli is pending in federal court in Richmond.

Read more

Well this is not shocking. Who in their right mind would expect a federal judge to deny the federal government more power over peoples lives and choices?

His contention that it is Constitutional is based upon.....

"there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.

The judiciary, along with the legislative and executive branches and rendered themselves insignificant and certainly would not be missed

I'm not shocked at all...because it was the correct decision.

I got tired of trying to tell people that the courts will uphold this law...because it IS constitutional...so days like these are good days for me. I can just sit back and watch all the people that were sure that the courts would strike this down realize that they were wrong.

This doesn't surprise me but probably for different reasons than most people would lay claim to. Liberty University isn't exactly a prestigious law school like Harvard or Cornell, its a "Christian Evangelical university" and as such I suspect its first and foremost focus is of course on religion. Odds are good that they didn't present their case in a fashion that adequately pointed out the abuses of the Commerce clause, hopefully when Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli's challenge is heard it receives better results.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I can just sit back and watch all the people that were sure that the courts would strike this down realize that they were wrong.

You're going to have to a wait a while longer then at least for me because this suit has not discouraged me in the least. I am still convinced the courts will strike it down.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm not shocked at all...because it was the correct decision.

I got tired of trying to tell people that the courts will uphold this law...because it IS constitutional...so days like these are good days for me. I can just sit back and watch all the people that were sure that the courts would strike this down realize that they were wrong.

Article 1 Section 8

Healthcare isn't listed as a Constitutionally authorized expenditure.

Not surprising. Insurance companies bought enough congressmen to ram this through, they'll buy a few judges to keep it in place. It's not like anyone in government cares about the Constitution or the will of the people anyway. It would be really nice to know how much, or how little, money it takes to get a congressman or judge to sell out their country.

The only way voters will be able to change things in this country is to get away from electronic voting and even paper ballots. Lead ballots will make sure that every vote is counted. Vote early and often.

It's that Federal "living constitution" where judges decide what part of the constitution to redefine out of existence from session to session. They are menace to the survival of our Republic. If the Feds want to change the constittuion, they should do so legally as laid out in the constiution. I see this as treason.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Sure it is, it's right there in Article 1 Section 8. Go find it. I see it.

Here's a link.

It's also mentioned in the preamble to the constitution, or do you not recognize that portion of it?

I'm almost certain there's some mention of it in the 9th amendment as well.

Go ahead and check.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
...I can just sit back and watch all the people that were sure that the courts would strike this down realize that they were wrong.

No, because only their version of the constitution is right.

nowhere in the constitution does it give the gov't power to demand that you spend money you do not have!!! get the cost of the healthcare down to a level where a great majority of the people can afford it, and well, then maybe they could....but it's not just the poorest of poor that can't afford it, and they have medicaid, so they don't have to worry about it....
there's a mass of not so poors that can't afford it....and I got a feeling that that mass of people has been growing daily (because of the effects that this bill has caused along with unemployment and job losses).
wages for the workers need to raise, or the cost of living needs to go down....and that is all there is to it!!
till that problem is addressed, their laws are only gonna result in chaos!!!
taking money that would have been used for food, or shelter, or transportation....and diverting it into the pathetic healthcare system is only gonna divert the problem to housing, or food, or whatever!

I see this action as having only one meaning:

Criminals can not own firearms. Failure to obey the law makes you a criminal. By enforcing this unconstitutional law, the government is removing the protection of the Second Amendment from the people that will protest these and future criminally unconstitutional actions of the Federal Government.

If you do not have this insurance as required, you cannot own a gun. Period. End of story. Nothing like defeating a legal rebellion by removing the law rather than declaring martial law.

Originally posted by links234


Sure it is, it's right there in Article 1 Section 8. Go find it. I see it.

Here's a link.

It's also mentioned in the preamble to the constitution, or do you not recognize that portion of it?

I'm almost certain there's some mention of it in the 9th amendment as well.

Go ahead and check.

Not quite.

Sure I recognize the preamble, but I also know (as should anyone who wishes to debate the Constitution) that it holds no power in terms of authorizing the government to do anything. The preamble is merely the introduction.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

declaring that a provision requiring most individuals to obtain insurance is constitutional.

LOL

Our courts are a joke.

We really are a banana republic.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

We really are a banana republic.

Yup.

But we are in the early stages where some of the cops still feel weird taking bribes and might arrest you for offering.

That will change soon. And there is no middle ground to pass through - I've seen it happen - it goes from "I'm arresting to for trying to bribe me" to "I'm arresting you for not bribing me" and it does so overnight.

Within a period of months or weeks, young men start considering becoming a cop not to help their city, but to get a piece of the fat action they know about. Within two years men will be working the streets over, dressed a cops - but out for bribes and protection money. At this point, there aren't even any bananas to be had in that Banana Republic (unless one is with the government).

I knew this would happen. Not because I think it's constitutional but because whatever TPTB want is always constitutional. The constitution means whatever they say it means today. Tomorrow, it will mean something else. Next year, same thing. This "legal challenge" was a complete and utter sham. There is nothing anyone can do about it. They want to get the legal challenge out of the way right off so it won't be challenged in the future when people really start to wake up to what it's all about. That won't really come about until 2014. They'll just be screwed.

They don't make bold moves like this unless they know it's safe for them to do so. This thing is set in stone. If you have this country figured out, you might have figured out by now that the Democrats and Republicans are the same party. Which means the Republicans aren't going to do a damn thing about "Obamacare". They might pretend to try but they will also pretend to fail.

Point being, Obamacare appears to be a significant piece of the apparatus the government will use to own us and control us in the future. Not to mention the precedent set by forcing us to buy insurance.

reply to post by links234


Where exactly do you see it? What line? what sentence? Any free thinking/reading individual would disagree? Are you delusional? Or just lack the the knowledge of the Constitution? I would have to pick the latter of the group.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm not shocked at all...because it was the correct decision.

I got tired of trying to tell people that the courts will uphold this law...because it IS constitutional...so days like these are good days for me. I can just sit back and watch all the people that were sure that the courts would strike this down realize that they were wrong.

hmmm: lets see:
"there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.

"there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for vehicle repairs are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate vehicle repair market.

"there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for lawn care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate lawn care market

Yup makes perfect legal sense to me


Not.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I swear! It's mentioned at least three times in the constitution, I offered the links to the appropriate sections above. I'm not delusional, I don't think you are either. I also believe you have the ability to grasp and understand the constitution.

It's there, you just have to read it.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

I swear! It's mentioned at least three times in the constitution, I offered the links to the appropriate sections above. I'm not delusional, I don't think you are either. I also believe you have the ability to grasp and understand the constitution.

It's there, you just have to read it.

I don't know what you think you see in the Constitution of the United States but I'd bet that most people in the 1700s would have been bewildered by a law requiring people to buy health insurance. But common sense hasn't stopped the US government or it's supporters from misinterpreting, stretching and massaging the US Constitution to mean what they want it to mean anytime in the past so why should they start now? Or to put it another way, in those times, people like you would have probably been wearing a British uniform.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

I swear! It's mentioned at least three times in the constitution, I offered the links to the appropriate sections above. I'm not delusional, I don't think you are either. I also believe you have the ability to grasp and understand the constitution.

It's there, you just have to read it.

Article1section8 the powers of the congress:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


www.usconstitution.net...

I'm sorry I'm not quite sure what you are talking about:

Oh yeah "promote the general welfare"? Kinda subjective; doesit promote the general welfare to impoverish and possibly imprison much of the formerly middle class?

Originally posted by spicypickle
I don't know what you think you see in the Constitution of the United States but I'd bet that most people in the 1700s would have been bewildered by a law requiring people to buy health insurance.

I'm sure the concept of health insurance would bewilder most people of that era.

reply to post by 46ACE


Thank you for posting that, I don't understand how people aren't seeing it myself.

Every word of the health care law is constitutional, if anyone bothered reading either of the two they might see that.