Will the Supreme Court uphold the Heath Care law?

As it should be...he took an oath and he is nothing but a liar!
All Gov. officials need to live and Rule by the Constitution!

No. All those with pre-existing conditions will once again be without insurance soon. Republicans scored a victory over the middle class again.

They should have purchased insurance before they got the preexisting condition. You can't wait until the Barn catches on fire and then get insurance on it.

My daughter was born with a pre existing condition. A lot of people are. What do you say to theM

Jay Leno asked Romney the same question this week and he said, special previsions would have to be made in cases like yours.

How will it be paid for, what are the special provision, when will they be made?

GOD I hope not!

I dont really know what they will do.

I certainly hope not

The mandate is clearly unconstitutional and will be shot down...... our SC has not yet been overrun by left wing activist judges.

Yet another survey without an "other" option. The key arguments surround the individual mandate which is being presented to the court today. That is what will be decisive. At this point though, 2 factors suggest it will be upheld. While the appeals court decisions have been split, more have supported the mandate than have opposed it. Second, the decision in Gonzales v. Raich has set the bar so low for invoking the commerce clause (see Scalia's opinion in that case which states the federal government can use the commerce clause to regulate activity that isn't even commerce, much less interstate commerce), that it is impossible to imagine activity that makes up over 10% of the GDP will fail that test. I also find it suggestive that the first day of arguments focused on an obscure 1867 law that is irrelevant to the public debate: that indicates the court will likely decide this case on technical legal grounds, rather than on the essentially political issues that have played out in the media.

Right, but wasn't that stopping an activity not forcing a contract.

The question is whether stopping an uninsured person from presenting himself at a hospital and getting free treatment (which essentially means at public expense) by requiring he has health insurance isn't also stopping an activity.

However, from what I've heard from Court reporters (who understand this stuff much better than I do), Scalia seems to have reversed himself during his questioning in this case.

Thanks for the update.

They are corrupt, yes sadly they will.

You would be correct IF you were talking about Ginsberg, Kagen and Sotomayor.

All of them are bought and paid for, wake up and smell the tyranny.

The law as it stands overreaches the boundaries that the government can mandate. Purely and simply, and I am typing really slowly for me, it is unconstitutional.

I do hope so.

They will.
They didn't slap down Mitt Romney's h/c in Massachusetts did they?

Apples and Oranges, one is a states rights issue the other concerns the Federal government which is to be limited. The mandate is the best example of the Feds over stepping the limits place on the Federal government

Massachusetts didn't go to the supreme court.

didn't any citizen of Mass.? Seems odd. But what does unconstitutional mean? Surely that covers states too? Just askin.

No one took it to the supreme court. Remember. Massachusetts is the state where the sheeple kept electing the drunken murderer, Ted Kennedy.

This law violates the constitution on every level. If it stands then our constitution is toast, which would be a delight to many Democrats.

The democrats are not smart enough to know trashing the constitution will destroy the United States. Of course, that's what B Hussein Obama/Bary Soetoro wants.

and kagan should recluse herself from the case. she was a big proponent of obamacare and cannot be impartial but she will not becayse that is one of the big reasons obama picked her for the supreme court. that and the fact that she kept most of the law suits against obama to show his full b.c. out of court. another words you wash my back and i will wash yours and obama said no more business as usual?

I have yet to see ANY way in which this law violates the Constitution. If it does not, there is no grounds on which to strike it down. And so far, every lower court has agreed on that point. SCOTUS will too.

the government cannot force any citizen to buy a product or service. apparently a lot of judges think there is or it would never have made it to the supreme court.

Show me where the Constitution says that.

Exactly, it doesn't say it in the Constitution so it cannot be rendered against any citizen. The U.S. Constitution limits the Government not the Citizens. It states we are endowed with our Rights and the Government's function is only there to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Section 8. states what the founders recognized under the Commerce Clause. You will not find "force American citizens to purchase products for their own good" in there.

All that means is that the Constitution doesn't directly permit it. It does NOT mean that it forbids it. Eating a bacon egg and cheese biscuit this morning for breakfast was NOT Constitutional, but that isn't the same as being UNconstitutional.

See, Elijah this is where you don't grasp the concept of the Constitution as limiting Government's power. If it is not in the Constitution the Government does NOT have the Right to do it.

However, you as an Individual were granted your Rights by the Creator (not the Constitution) so you eating a bacon, egg, & cheese biscuit is good to go no matter when you want to do it. The Government trying to stop you from eating one is Unconstitutional.

So then I trust that you oppose DOMA?

Yes I do ~ pure politics. Marriage should be up to churches and anything conducted in a courthouse or by a public official should be a civil union. I don't care who is joining to who (as long as they are of the age of consent) and limit to two. Any guy/gal wanting two spouses is a damn fool (handling one is hard enough).

Also Civil Unions should have 100% the rights of Marriage - period!

Well, at least you're consistant. I still disagree with you on the other thing, but I respect the fact that you don't cherry-pick.

If the government is not authorized to, then it cannot take action under the 10th amendment.
Its not a matter of "where does the constitution say the government cant". Its a matter of "where does the constitution say the government can".

So, where does it say the government can require people to purchase healthcare, require home visitations by the government for parents, Prohibit hospitals from expanding (with the possibility to apply for an exemption every 2 years), etc.

So I trust that you oppose DOMA as well?

I'm not well versed on DOMA. All I can say is I'd really rather we shut up about marriage, and leave it up to private contracts, and if the couple desires have a church or other 3rd party involved.
The federal government has no place in marriage, and the states should get out too. Their involvement creates more issues than it resolves, and more distractions from greater issues like war and torture.

Well, I think equality is a pretty big issue, but that isn't the point. Conservatives and Libertarians tend to have no problem with government expanding to do the things THEY want it to do. They only bitch about it over-reaching, when it's doing something they don't like. I'm not saying that this is the case with you. If that really is how you feel about DOMA, and you are the same way on the topic of abortion, and legalization of weed, and so-on; while I disagree with you on THIS issue, I at least respect your consistancy. But MOST self-proclaimed Conservatives and Libertarians, are not.