Do You Agree With the Supreme Court’s Health Care Decision?

Has any of the Supreme Court Justices read the Constitution lately? I can say five of the justices will have to be held accountable for how they ruled. There is no reason why Obama care should be ruled Constitutional. Many Americans read the Constitution and know with no doubt what is said in simple terms. The Constitution was meant to be understood by the common person. It is not complicated to understand. It does not take a Harvard Law Degree to understand with clarity what the Constitution says about Obamacare. Only lawyers can screw it up with their own twisted thinking and word manipulation to stretch the meaning beyond the intent.

1. The Obamacare individual Mandate is a direct Tax which is unconstitutional under Article 1 section 9: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

2. It violates State’s right since the Federal Government does not have the Constitutional Authority to take over Healthcare as stated in the 10th Amendment outlined in the Bill of Rights. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

3. This mandate is involuntary servitude or slavery to the big banks and the insurance industries. The 13 amendment states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

4. It benefits certain industries in a crony capitalist or a monopoly system is illegal in the Constitution under Article 1 section 8: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

5. Justice Kagan is not supposed to hear this case because of conflict of interest. The reason is; she was part of drafting and passing the Affordable Healthcare Act. I would recommend many state Attorney Generals invalidate the ruling from the High Court on the bases Justice Kagan did not recuse herself as the law prescribed.

6. The American people overwhelmingly reject the Government taking over the Healthcare industry.

7. This July 4. We celebrate Independence Day breaking all political ties with the King of England because of taxes and government oppressing the colonist as written in the Declaration of Independence stating: He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.Get ready for IRS agents to come and collect unjust taxes trying to force us to pay for something we do not want.

8. The Individual Mandate is a tax imposed on us, just as the early colonist said in their grievance against the King Stated again in the Declaration of Independence. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. We went from no taxation without representation to TAXATION WITHOUT HESITATION 235 years later, Obamacare was rammed down our throats without our consent.

9. Remember the Whiskey and Shays rebellions. The people will resist and revolt than pay for a tax they never consented to nor are not legally bound under the Constitution. The people back in our early history were the final check on government power.

10. the American people will be the final check on government power as stated again in the famous document signed by 56 people on July 4, 1776: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

11. States can ignore the supreme court ruling under this landmark decision Prinz Mack vs. Brady Bill victory for the 10th Amendment with Justice Scalia giving the majority opinion writing saying the several states “are not subject to federal direction” reinforcing the Federalist papers quote: ” The great innovation of this design was that-our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other” With another Federalist quote: ” Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front”

12. States will reject implementing Obamacare for the reason, it cost too much. It will wreck the economies already on the brink in many states hit hard by the economic depression. It will increase the number of people out of work. Many states will balk,

13. This ruling will also give fuel to people running for state legislators. The people will demand the states to nullify Obamacare with other draconian illegal Federal incursions like the TSA with more intensity.

This ruling might be the spark America needs to find within themselves to take their country back from socialist control freaks. Firearms sales are rising to record levels. The reason is the people see the government as a threat to their safety and security.

This ruling might be a blessing in disguise that could be the best thing to happen for America. This is a good reason more then ever to push back government inside the confines of the Constitution. Are you motivated to take back America? Just face facts, we can no longer sit on the sidelines being a spectator. We have no choice but to push back or we will be slaves. I am no slave, are you?

And you welfare libtards are going to reap the benefits of OBAMACARE? Lets take a good look you fool.........

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts decided to save President Obama’s signature legislation by ruling that the individual mandate requiring Americans to have health coverage or pay a fine is constitutional under the federal government’s taxing power.

That ruling took most people by surprise, since the Justice Department appears to have thought the “taxing power” argument was the weakest of its three weak justifications. Maybe Roberts has an affinity for weak arguments, because he certainly made a number of them himself in justifying the mandate as a tax.

When the chief justice and his liberal colleagues consider the mandate a tax, they seem to mean only the penalty a person must pay for not having health insurance. However, the mandate has two parts: the requirement to have coverage and the penalty — er, tax — for not getting it. Why aren’t both considered a tax?

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos did. When he directly challenged the president on the mandate-as-tax question, he said, “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

And if both the premium and the penalty are considered a tax, the mandate becomes the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And that doesn’t include all of the other taxes imposed by the legislation.

The median U.S. family income is about $50,000. Family health coverage can easily run $20,000 a year — and rising quickly. In that scenario, the coverage mandate is essentially a 40 percent tax on that family, which is now required by law to ensure that every family member has qualifying coverage.

And because the cost of the coverage will be similar even though incomes vary significantly, the lower the income the higher the effective tax rate — in essence, the most regressive tax in U.S. history, too.

Now, President Obama and his enablers may deny the health insurance premium is a tax. But the bill’s defenders — including Budget Director Peter Orszag, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and the president himself, not to mention Democrats in Congress — also denied the mandate was a tax.

But when it became useful for the law’s supporters to consider the mandate a tax, they made the mental switcheroo easily. That’s because consistency and truth were not the goal; getting five Supreme Court votes was the only thing that mattered.

If Roberts had told the liberals on the Court that the price for him signing on to the mandate was to consider both the premiums and the penalty a tax, would any of them have objected? How about the Flip-Flopper in Chief!

ROMNEYCARE VS OBAMACARE

Overall Size and Scope

*RomneyCare
-Whole bill was 70 pages
-Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
-No federal gov. insurance option
-Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare

*OBAMACARE
-Whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no "opt out" provision
-Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
-Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance


Costs

*ROMNEYCARE
-No new taxes!
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)

*OBAMACARE
-Increased taxes by $500 billion
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!


Popularity

*RomneyCare
-Very strong bipartisan support
-Strong special interest support
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
-Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate

*OBAMACARE
-Absolutely no bipartisan support
-Very controversial and divided special interest groups
-Unpopular in nation overall
-No consensus was built to support a mandate


Constitutionality

*RomneyCare
-Constitutional
-Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, Romneycare will
remain constitutional

*OBAMACARE
-Potentially unconstitutional
-Supreme Court has yet to rule on 10th amendment limitations of federal gov. power in regard to this law



Federalism

*RomneyCare
-A state solution to a state problem
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law

*OBAMACARE
-Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.
(less)

Most Americans don't want OBAMACARE!!!!!! Low income and libtards who are clueless anyways, flat out don't quite get the concept.