Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional

we used to all agree on separation of powers...in any case that is the law of the land which should be obeyed until and unless the Constitution gets rewritten..

Your right we all (most in the US) agree about the separation of powers. And this agreement is relevant to IRFRANK post how? You do know merely because you think something is unconstitutional or going beyond the three branches of government; it don't make it so?

From what I understand, the opponents of the Affordable Act are resting their statergy of getting it repealed by taking the mandate section of it to courts.

I read an interesting article in Think Progress today.






source[/url

Apparently as the article goes on to say, just that scenerio Cuccinelli described happened under George Washington.

Just because Obama thinks something is constitutional it don't make it so.

You don't seem to get it hawk.

What the Constitutions means is decided by courts. Well you can disagree with what the courts decide, that doesn't mean they were ignoring the Constitution.

Conservatives argue that the Courts should give deference to the legislature when it comes to laws. But that is quickly forgotten when they don't like the law. And the other side does the same thing. As Joe said, it's all about whose ox is getting gored.

Pretending & assuming that it HAD been re-written is what liberalism is all about.





David

Sure David. And that's why you think the Courts don't decide any case concerning the Constitution, correct?

Sad but true.

that argument did not work when the Bishops claimed that they and only they got to decide what the Bible says, nor does it work now. I both know how to read and have a functioning mind....and I know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is why the framers of the Constitution were so wise as to demand separation of powers/ checks and balances and that citizens have a duty to keep an eye on the government with a gun at the ready.

It is imperative that we the people do not let down our guard and allow this separation to atrophy. All three branches must be given a kick in the ass when they try to grab more power than they are entitled too. Judges have one coming.

Well said!

yeah... and where in the constitution does that power get taken from the courts and given to you?

The founders were wise enough to grant the court the power to decide all legal cases concerning the Constitution. You are free to disagree but unlike the courts you have no constitutional or legal basis to support your opinion.

Sounds like you had a radar detector confiscated in Virginia.

This is the best you can come up with as evidence of the hypocrisy of the right...in Virginia?

I think you will find that while radar detectors, as opposed to simply the use of them, are illegal in Virginia, police are permitted to confiscate them only until after their investigation is complete.

For the out of state driver passing through the state, this distinction is probably moot, because it’s unlikely that they will return to the state to retrieve a radar detector.

The confiscation part was news to me and I've given it some thought in regards to my personal political philosophy.

The primary (if not sole) purpose of radar detectors is to enable someone to break a law without suffering punishment.

The state of Virginia like all other states has established legal speed limits on its roads. While I suppose a more fervent libertarian than I could make an argument against speed limits, I see them as a valid infringement on individual freedom, imposed upon us all in order to safeguard the broader and more substantial rights of everyone who uses these roads.

As I have no problem with speed limits per se, I have no problem with outlawing the use of devices that encourage the breaking of speed limit laws.

From a practical standpoint, I imagine that simply outlawing the use of radar detectors is fairly ineffective in reducing their usage. After all, they are being used by people who fully intend to break one law (understanding that if they are caught they will be punished) and so are unlikely to be dissuaded from doing so, simply because it involves the breaking of a second law. I suspect that in addition to this quandary, it is probably difficult to make a case of illegal use of a radar detector stick.

A practical solution for lawmakers is to outlaw not only the use of the device, but possession of it. In this way, police can stop a driver if they simply see the device, which in turn encourages drivers to hide them while driving in Virginia which in most cases, I suspect, renders the device ineffective. I've no problem with this. The individual freedom to drive the streets and roads of Virginia with a non-functioning radar detector in plain sight is insignificant.

Virginia has, apparently, taken their fight against speeders a step further, and allows police to confiscate any radar detectors they find...until the investigation is concluded. Again, from a practical standpoint, we understand this is a permanent seizure unless the scofflaw in question is a resident of Virginia or one seriously outraged visitor.

Obviously this is not the only case where law enforcement is permitted to confiscate illegal substances and devices, and often there is no promise to return them upon completion of the investigation. This makes perfect sense. If possession of a particular device is illegal, then why allow the law breaker to possess one? In the case of radar detectors an argument can't even been made that they can serve other useful and legal purposes...unless, I suppose, one is a fighter pilot.

The only factor that gives me pause is that the possession of the device is legal in numerous other states, and possibly in the home state of the offender, but Virginia is entitled to establish reasonable laws governing activities within its borders and I don't see how this one violates the Constitution.

So, I've concluded that as someone who considers himself a conservative, I have no problem with the Virginia law, including the confiscation element.

There may be others who can and wish to make an argument against the Virginia law which I welcome.

Fortunately, the founding fathers did not take such a Protestant approach in determining who gets to interpret the law.

Oh, so the checks and balances are all good until one of the branches actually uses that check and balance power? How have the courts overstepped their powers?

I'll go one farther than Joe. You are an idiot.

for starters:

Corporations=citizens

Money=free speech

continually pissing all over majority rights when self proclaimed victims come calling for a hand out....

Keep this in mind: Government is not God

Right, simply because it furthers your goal of making Obama a failure, regardless of the cost to your fellow citizens or the nation as a whole.

"I'm going to hold my breath until I get my way."

Do you realize what an ass you and your fellow right wing nuts are ?

PrezBO is failing on his own accord - he and his left wing nuts are failures just like you.

It was legislatures that made corporations citizens. The courts just didn't overturn it when asked.

I might agree with this argument. It may be valid to make illegal items that make breaking the law easier. What about police band radios? There are many examples.

I think the real discussion in this health care debate should be about the 'real' problem of the uninsured in health care. Who pays their bill when they show up at the ER? The answer is - all the rest of us. Is it reasonable to deny them service when they do, because they don't have the ability to pay?

We force people to buy automobile insurance. We avoid the same argument because we say it is voluntary to drive or own a car, which is obviously true. But we still punish those who drive uninsured. Can we not punish those who show up at the ER uninsured? Give them medical treatment and then it's off to jail, for failure to have medical insurance?

It seems to me that the only good solution to this whole mess is single option, government health care. Taxes provide highways for all of us to use, even though many don't own a car. Taxes provide defense, whether or not we agree with it's use. Why not health care? Isn't it something provided for the greater good?

If it is unconstitutional to force folks to buy health insurance then I'm done paying property taxes.

No he dose'nt, nor will he ever!