wmw999 2,588 #101 February 1, 2011 The court said "what this law decrees is illegal." The court said "that means that counties cannot discriminate based on the gender of the people wanting to get married." In the case of our hypothetical law about Christians and Jews, if the court found the law illegal, should they say "the law is illegal, but go ahead and keep following it until they get it right" would you think that was right? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #102 February 1, 2011 Let me ask you a question; if the Obama Health Plan lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court and is declared unconstitutional, does that mean that it goes back to the Legislature, and is followed until they re-consider the legislation? Or does it mean that it's done for? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #103 February 1, 2011 QuoteLet me ask you a question; if the Obama Health Plan lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court and is declared unconstitutional, does that mean that it goes back to the Legislature, and is followed until they re-consider the legislation? Or does it mean that it's done for? Wendy P. You will not know what it means until they make their ruling. If, like this recent Judge in Florida, held that the ENTIRE bill was void because one section of it was ruled unconstitutional, then it would go back to square one. There aren't a lot of people that believe that's possible because there are simply too many other parts of the bill that are completely constitutional and the part about an individual mandate absolutely can be struck down separately. All of these contingencies have been thought about and mulled over, but the fact is, we won't know for certain until an actual ruling comes down. You're looking at that happening about a year from now at the very earliest. In the mean time, the current bill is still in effect.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #104 February 2, 2011 QuoteLet me ask you a question; if the Obama Health Plan lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court and is declared unconstitutional, does that mean that it goes back to the Legislature, and is followed until they re-consider the legislation? Or does it mean that it's done for? Wendy P. That is the choice of the Legislature. If there is to be something else then yes Other wise this law just ceases to exist"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #105 February 2, 2011 So if the legislature doesn't consider it for 5 years, that means that the illegal law has to be followed for those 5 years? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #106 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteLet me ask you a question; if the Obama Health Plan lawsuit makes it to the Supreme Court and is declared unconstitutional, does that mean that it goes back to the Legislature, and is followed until they re-consider the legislation? Or does it mean that it's done for? Wendy P. You will not know what it means until they make their ruling. If, like this recent Judge in Florida, held that the ENTIRE bill was void because one section of it was ruled unconstitutional, then it would go back to square one. There aren't a lot of people that believe that's possible because there are simply too many other parts of the bill that are completely constitutional and the part about an individual mandate absolutely can be struck down separately. All of these contingencies have been thought about and mulled over, but the fact is, we won't know for certain until an actual ruling comes down. You're looking at that happening about a year from now at the very earliest. In the mean time, the current bill is still in effect. Suits are being prepared to stay implimentation until ruled upon"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #107 February 2, 2011 ***But the lack of a severability clause wouldn’t necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing — the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority — and isn’t wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Court’s approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand. *** SOX can easily exist in portions. It's got many pain in the ass regulatory requirements that can stand alone. And it worked so well to prevent 2008! But the Obama HealthCare bill really cannot. The economics fail completely if the mandatory purchase is struck down. So if you rule that piece to be unconstitutional, it's time to start over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #108 February 2, 2011 Quote A court is not supposed to write law It did as it ordered same sex marriages to start on a given day It properly should have sent the bill back to the legislator to make is consitutional Typically, that same legislature made the unconstitutional law in the first place! You want the court to send it back to them to fix it? That would basically neuter the power of the court. No, what happens is that the court says 'this is not constitutional. You have until day X to make it right.' In the case of gay marriage, it doesn't take much effort at all to let them get married. You only have to change the form where it says "bride" and "groom" to "person A" and "person B." With Chicago's gun ban, or DC's ban, there's a bit more work to do to set up the process for citizens to purchase guns. The court would recognize that and allow for more time before enforcing the decision. But simply saying that the legislature should now fix their own mess is a slap in the face at the plaintiffs, essentially forcing them to sue a second time for results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #109 February 2, 2011 >That is the choice of the Legislature. If there is to be something else then yes So if the healthcare plan is declared unconstitutional, but the legislature cannot agree on its replacement, then it remains in force - with all its provisions intact - until such time as they can agree, even if it's years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #110 February 2, 2011 Do you know what a knight fork is, Marc? Because you have found yourself in one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #111 February 2, 2011 Quote There aren't a lot of people that believe that's possible because there are simply too many other parts of the bill that are completely constitutional and the part about an individual mandate absolutely can be struck down separately. I'd heard a while ago that there was a clause missing (severability clause or something like that) that would have allowed it to be struck down in pieces, but because it was missing, if any part was struck down, the whole thing would fall. I was driving and couldn't pay full attention. Is this not the case?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #112 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuote There aren't a lot of people that believe that's possible because there are simply too many other parts of the bill that are completely constitutional and the part about an individual mandate absolutely can be struck down separately. I'd heard a while ago that there was a clause missing (severability clause or something like that) that would have allowed it to be struck down in pieces, but because it was missing, if any part was struck down, the whole thing would fall. I was driving and couldn't pay full attention. Is this not the case? From what I can tell the severability clause was left out at the insistence of the defendant in this case, and severability would be left to the discretion of the judges. Here is an excert from Vinson's opinion regarding that: "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions--which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort--for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress' main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," not "The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act." The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker." The Administration and Congress kind of dug their own grave on that one.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #113 February 2, 2011 Quote>That is the choice of the Legislature. If there is to be something else then yes So if the healthcare plan is declared unconstitutional, but the legislature cannot agree on its replacement, then it remains in force - with all its provisions intact - until such time as they can agree, even if it's years. Nope They may never replace it Oh, did the AZ imigration law work that way?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jgoose71 0 #114 February 2, 2011 So does anybody know how many people have been exempted from Obama care to date? I'm thinking of this as just a waiver for the country. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #115 February 2, 2011 Quote So does anybody know how many people have been exempted from Obama care to date? I'm thinking of this as just a waiver for the country. I heard on the radio over 300 of them exempting 6.1 M employees 40% of the union and the best one is one of the first was AARP's employee base"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #116 February 2, 2011 QuoteSo if the legislature doesn't consider it for 5 years, that means that the illegal law has to be followed for those 5 years? Wendy P. Like the AZ imigration law?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #117 February 2, 2011 You're looking at that happening about a year from now at the very earliest. In the mean time, the current bill is still in effect. So the AZ imigration law is still in effect because it is under apeal right?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #118 February 2, 2011 For those that think the individual mandate is legal and should be allowed.... How do you feel about this mandate: http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20110201/Proposed-law-says-adults-must-own-a-gun/ QuoteLegislation has been introduced by lawmakers in South Dakota that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm. According to ArgusLeader.com the bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people sixth months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. Would this also be legal in your opinion? I already know the people proposing the law do not think it should be.... But what do YOU who support the insurance mandate feel? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #119 February 2, 2011 Next thing you know they'll be forcing you to buy car insurance! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #120 February 2, 2011 QuoteNext thing you know they'll be forcing you to buy car insurance! Fail, you do not have to drive..... Would you support a law requiring everyone over 21 to own a handgun (Other than those not allowed to own a gun by current law)? Yes, or No? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #121 February 2, 2011 QuoteNext thing you know they'll be forcing you to buy car insurance! only if you wish to drive (a priviledge) on public roads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #122 February 2, 2011 QuoteWould you support a law requiring everyone over 21 to own a handgun (Other than those not allowed to own a gun by current law)? Yes, or No? This is not a great approach, you are making a comparison of a RIGHT (bear arms) to a consumer product offering (health insurance). I'm not a fan of putting health insurance on equal footing - even to contrast the point. Speech - pass a law that requires everyone to join a speech club Religion - pass a law requiring everyone to contribute weekly $$$$ to some institution Guns - pass a law requiring everyone to buy guns if it's a right, just protect the option, but don't pass laws forcing it health insurance - it's not a right, so even the nutty items above have more footing for discussion ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #123 February 2, 2011 QuoteThis is not a great approach, you are making a comparison of a RIGHT (bear arms) to a consumer product offering (health insurance). I'm not a fan of putting health insurance on equal footing - even to contrast the point. Yes, but the point is all those that support the insurance mandate need to be able to explain why this should not be allowed. It guns being a right means that it should have more to stand on than HC. Personally, I am one of those whacky people that thinks that people should be able to choose things about their own life. So you don't want to own a gun, you should not be forced to buy one. You don't want insurance, you should not be forced to buy that either. Consistency in opinion that the liberals are not showing on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #124 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteThis is not a great approach, you are making a comparison of a RIGHT (bear arms) to a consumer product offering (health insurance). I'm not a fan of putting health insurance on equal footing - even to contrast the point. Yes, but the point is all those that support the insurance mandate need to be able to explain why this should not be allowed. It guns being a right means that it should have more to stand on than HC. Personally, I am one of those whacky people that thinks that people should be able to choose things about their own life. So you don't want to own a gun, you should not be forced to buy one. You don't want insurance, you should not be forced to buy that either. Consistency in opinion that the liberals are not showing on this issue. SO when some slimeball shoots you and you do not have insurance... cool we get to leave you laying in the gutter bleeding out because you did not adequately plan for this contingency in your life, I bet a bunch of your fellow travellers are good with that, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #125 February 2, 2011 QuoteSO when some slimeball shoots you and you do not have insurance... cool we get to leave you laying in the gutter bleeding out because you did not adequately plan for this contingency in your life, I bet a bunch of your fellow travellers are good with that, Like always, you ignore the question and spout crap. You want to force people to do the things YOU want. But are unwilling to follow that same standard when YOU don't want to..... Hypocrisy at its best. BTW, I have plenty of health insurance. It is important to me, so I get it. Unlike you, I don't expect others to carry my weight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 5 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lefty 0 #112 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuote There aren't a lot of people that believe that's possible because there are simply too many other parts of the bill that are completely constitutional and the part about an individual mandate absolutely can be struck down separately. I'd heard a while ago that there was a clause missing (severability clause or something like that) that would have allowed it to be struck down in pieces, but because it was missing, if any part was struck down, the whole thing would fall. I was driving and couldn't pay full attention. Is this not the case? From what I can tell the severability clause was left out at the insistence of the defendant in this case, and severability would be left to the discretion of the judges. Here is an excert from Vinson's opinion regarding that: "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions--which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort--for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress' main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," not "The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act." The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker." The Administration and Congress kind of dug their own grave on that one.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #113 February 2, 2011 Quote>That is the choice of the Legislature. If there is to be something else then yes So if the healthcare plan is declared unconstitutional, but the legislature cannot agree on its replacement, then it remains in force - with all its provisions intact - until such time as they can agree, even if it's years. Nope They may never replace it Oh, did the AZ imigration law work that way?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jgoose71 0 #114 February 2, 2011 So does anybody know how many people have been exempted from Obama care to date? I'm thinking of this as just a waiver for the country. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #115 February 2, 2011 Quote So does anybody know how many people have been exempted from Obama care to date? I'm thinking of this as just a waiver for the country. I heard on the radio over 300 of them exempting 6.1 M employees 40% of the union and the best one is one of the first was AARP's employee base"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #116 February 2, 2011 QuoteSo if the legislature doesn't consider it for 5 years, that means that the illegal law has to be followed for those 5 years? Wendy P. Like the AZ imigration law?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #117 February 2, 2011 You're looking at that happening about a year from now at the very earliest. In the mean time, the current bill is still in effect. So the AZ imigration law is still in effect because it is under apeal right?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #113 February 2, 2011 Quote>That is the choice of the Legislature. If there is to be something else then yes So if the healthcare plan is declared unconstitutional, but the legislature cannot agree on its replacement, then it remains in force - with all its provisions intact - until such time as they can agree, even if it's years. Nope They may never replace it Oh, did the AZ imigration law work that way?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #114 February 2, 2011 So does anybody know how many people have been exempted from Obama care to date? I'm thinking of this as just a waiver for the country. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #115 February 2, 2011 Quote So does anybody know how many people have been exempted from Obama care to date? I'm thinking of this as just a waiver for the country. I heard on the radio over 300 of them exempting 6.1 M employees 40% of the union and the best one is one of the first was AARP's employee base"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #116 February 2, 2011 QuoteSo if the legislature doesn't consider it for 5 years, that means that the illegal law has to be followed for those 5 years? Wendy P. Like the AZ imigration law?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #117 February 2, 2011 You're looking at that happening about a year from now at the very earliest. In the mean time, the current bill is still in effect. So the AZ imigration law is still in effect because it is under apeal right?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #118 February 2, 2011 For those that think the individual mandate is legal and should be allowed.... How do you feel about this mandate: http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20110201/Proposed-law-says-adults-must-own-a-gun/ QuoteLegislation has been introduced by lawmakers in South Dakota that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm. According to ArgusLeader.com the bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people sixth months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. Would this also be legal in your opinion? I already know the people proposing the law do not think it should be.... But what do YOU who support the insurance mandate feel? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #119 February 2, 2011 Next thing you know they'll be forcing you to buy car insurance! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #120 February 2, 2011 QuoteNext thing you know they'll be forcing you to buy car insurance! Fail, you do not have to drive..... Would you support a law requiring everyone over 21 to own a handgun (Other than those not allowed to own a gun by current law)? Yes, or No? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #121 February 2, 2011 QuoteNext thing you know they'll be forcing you to buy car insurance! only if you wish to drive (a priviledge) on public roads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #122 February 2, 2011 QuoteWould you support a law requiring everyone over 21 to own a handgun (Other than those not allowed to own a gun by current law)? Yes, or No? This is not a great approach, you are making a comparison of a RIGHT (bear arms) to a consumer product offering (health insurance). I'm not a fan of putting health insurance on equal footing - even to contrast the point. Speech - pass a law that requires everyone to join a speech club Religion - pass a law requiring everyone to contribute weekly $$$$ to some institution Guns - pass a law requiring everyone to buy guns if it's a right, just protect the option, but don't pass laws forcing it health insurance - it's not a right, so even the nutty items above have more footing for discussion ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #123 February 2, 2011 QuoteThis is not a great approach, you are making a comparison of a RIGHT (bear arms) to a consumer product offering (health insurance). I'm not a fan of putting health insurance on equal footing - even to contrast the point. Yes, but the point is all those that support the insurance mandate need to be able to explain why this should not be allowed. It guns being a right means that it should have more to stand on than HC. Personally, I am one of those whacky people that thinks that people should be able to choose things about their own life. So you don't want to own a gun, you should not be forced to buy one. You don't want insurance, you should not be forced to buy that either. Consistency in opinion that the liberals are not showing on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #124 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteThis is not a great approach, you are making a comparison of a RIGHT (bear arms) to a consumer product offering (health insurance). I'm not a fan of putting health insurance on equal footing - even to contrast the point. Yes, but the point is all those that support the insurance mandate need to be able to explain why this should not be allowed. It guns being a right means that it should have more to stand on than HC. Personally, I am one of those whacky people that thinks that people should be able to choose things about their own life. So you don't want to own a gun, you should not be forced to buy one. You don't want insurance, you should not be forced to buy that either. Consistency in opinion that the liberals are not showing on this issue. SO when some slimeball shoots you and you do not have insurance... cool we get to leave you laying in the gutter bleeding out because you did not adequately plan for this contingency in your life, I bet a bunch of your fellow travellers are good with that, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #125 February 2, 2011 QuoteSO when some slimeball shoots you and you do not have insurance... cool we get to leave you laying in the gutter bleeding out because you did not adequately plan for this contingency in your life, I bet a bunch of your fellow travellers are good with that, Like always, you ignore the question and spout crap. You want to force people to do the things YOU want. But are unwilling to follow that same standard when YOU don't want to..... Hypocrisy at its best. BTW, I have plenty of health insurance. It is important to me, so I get it. Unlike you, I don't expect others to carry my weight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
