The revolt against Obamacare
Two items of note on the grass-roots revolt against the Obamacare power grab:
*A federal judge in Virginia has allowed the state’s lawsuit challenging the federal individual health care mandate to proceed:
A judge on Monday refused to dismiss the state of Virginia’s challenge to President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law, a setback that will force his administration to mount a lengthy legal defense of the overhaul effort.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson refused to dismiss the state’s lawsuit which argues the law’s requirement that its residents have health insurance was unconstitutional, allowing the challenge to go forward.
It’s good news for the Obamacare backlash by state attorneys general across the country — as well as for those sponsoring opt-out initiatives.
*Here in Colorado, Independence Institute president Jon Caldara has spearheaded a referendum to provide citizens here with health care choice. Petition signatures were turned in on Friday:
Coloradans may have the opportunity this fall to weigh in on the recent health care legislation passed by Congress. Roughly 130,000 signatures in support of the Right to Health Care Choice amendment to Colorado’s Constitution were turned into the Secretary of State’s office on Friday afternoon.
AdvertisementTo qualify for the November ballot, 76,047 of those signatures need to be matched with registered Colorado voters.
The amendment would prevent Coloradans from being required to buy health insurance and to continue to allow medical personnel to take payments in cash for services.
“We want Colorado to be a sanctuary state for quality health care,” Jon Caldara, the initiative’s chief proponent, said. “This is not just to address the mandate in Obama-care, this is to make sure Colorado never becomes like Massachusetts where government puts a gun to your head and says you will buy a private product whether you want it or not.”
***
Related: ObamaCare: Four Months Of Broken Promises
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Illinois Republicans flirting with cigarette tax hike for Obamacare — and a reminder about Orrin Hatch
May 21, 2012 11:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 Comments
Destroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsObamacare cronyism: The First Lady’s patient-dumping, privacy-meddling scheme
May 16, 2012 08:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsInsurers issuing new round of rebates must credit Obamacare
May 14, 2012 11:26 AM by Doug Powers
66 CommentsWhite House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
Biden predicts Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare
April 1, 2012 12:49 PM by Doug Powers
63 Comments
Categories: Health care
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearSister Toldjah
» Barack Obama: Can we call him a Socialist now?Redstate
» Daily Links – May 25, 2012
Great news on both fronts Michelle … thanks for the updates … hope every state does something to keep Obama’s DOJ and such tied up in court until we can reverse this tidal wave of liberalism and socialism …
And so it begins… godspeed to all involved in this fight.
This is the really good news of the day. Now every state needs to do the same, stat!
L
Curious no one here is making the same Article III, Section 2 jurisdiction argument to call for dismissing THIS caseas they did with the AZ suit.
This is great news. This administration has stuck it’s nose into every part of our lives. Why don’t they just do what they are reqquired to do by the constitution, and then leave us alone!!!!
We need a backlash for everything. The reckless spending needs to stop, mandates need to be lifted and freedom restored.
MO People — YES on C and Screw DC!!
Not curious at all as the two issues are totally unreleated in terms of their impact on a legal citzen in this country.
And isn’t tax credits for the Chevy Volt just as unconstitutional? It’s just shades of forcing me to buy something.
Has nothing to do with the issue at hand and everything to do with what some people here are claiming is the proper personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Obamacare is a budgetary nuclear bomb on the states. It represents the biggest unfunded federal mandate in human history. Even before considering its unconstitutionality, that baby should have been killed in the crib on the grounds of common sense.
Wouldn’t it be sweet if we could have a Republican Congress that would deny the Department of Justice the funding necessary to defend against these lawsuits? Ditto with immigration.
Yes! Going to the polls tomorrow!
States need to get rid of all the gov mandates which violate the 10th amendment. Too many states have been hooked on gov funds. Funds which never should have left the states for the gov to redistribute. States have to remind the gov of the things the gov IS responsible for doing and to get out of everything else. We are growing up now and we don’t need the gov being a controlling parent.
Unfortunately, KY’s AG isn’t among those opposing ObamaCare – as do the majority of Kentuckians!
Our AG thinks Kentuckians will eventually come to accept the burdensome law – aka he refuses to take on his party leader$ in DC – and is too busy running for the US Senate against Rand Paul to bother with doing his job.
I fail to see any connection between the two. In one case, the feds are suing a state for enforcing a law that the feds REFUSE to enforce. In the other, a state is suing the feds for trying to force their citizens (not royal subjects, mind you!) to buy a product. Care to fill me in on the connection?
***
The biggest problems will be caused by the doctors and hospitals refusing to take Medicare or Medicaid patients. The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Az. and many doctors all over the country have done so already.
***
And the doctor’s hours and salaries are being cut already. My younger son is a Doc in Phoenix–he just got a 25 percent pay cut. And he only started getting paid well a year ago–and still owes big bucks on the student loans that paid for his medical education.
***
My older son is also a Doc in Phoenix–and he is worried about the same stuff coming to his doorstep soon.
***
Great job, Comrade Obama (PBUH)–keep on “heppin us out”! When these socialist / marxist clowns are done with our economy the new definition of a “rich person” will be anyone with a real job.
***
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER–choose wisely.
***
John Bibb
***
Many posters here, as well as many others on the right were claiming that only the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case because Article III, Section 2 confers original jurisdiction on the SC in cases where a state is a party.
They are wrong, in any case, but not expecting them to make the same argument here.
One thing we can take away from this…this “teachable moment,” is that no matter what the government does, it’s the lawyers who gain economically. The money used to fight the taxpayer, does not help the taxpayer.
A gov’t of the people, for the people, and by the people, pay to have themselves sued! What’s wrong with this picture?
I don’t want my tax dollars going to defend ObamaCare, let AARP, SEIU and other Democrat lacky organizations pay for it.
I’m going to be voting YES ON C tomorrow in MO!
Chapoutier’s point, I guess, is that in the AZ matter (seven parties and the US government) sued AZ, and some commenters here argued that the jurisdiction to hear that suit lay solely in the U.S. Supreme Court and not in federal district court. Chapoutier did not identify which among you made that argument. And, as we’re all aware, AZ “lost” in the initial round of its litigation (though prevailing on the sanctuary-cities issue and on the ability of officers to exercise discretion to inquire about status). But that case will eventually wits way to the Ninth Circuit and maybe the Supreme Court (if AZ prevails in the Ninth Circuit, I bet SCOTUS doesn’t grant certioari).
Anyway, in the SOS suit against the federal government, the SOS have cleared the initial hurdle in the litigation–a motion to dismiss. Most here are celebrating, but chapoutier now seems to feel as if the victory is tainted because some of you–again, not identified–didn’t object to the SOS bringing the litigation in federal district court. According to chapoutier, your position on the merits of both suits is fundamentally flawed because some of you are arguing for inconsistent procedural routes for the two cases (original jurisdiction in SCOTUS or in federal district court).
Chapoutier: to be sure, the proper procedural route for each case is important. For my money, I’ll assume that the lawyers involved know were jurisdiction properly lies. More important, just because some commenters argued that SCOTUS took should have heard the AZ case originally has nothing to do with the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the Obamacare case.
If you have anything more interesting to contribute, please do so.
Here in FL, we had an “opt out” referendum on the ballot, but a judge removed it because it was too confusing.
Which side do you think the Dems argued?
Not at all. I am just contemplating how curious it is that these arguments come up in certain casea and not others. I guess fervent adherence to the letter of the Constitution only applies when it suits the right.
That or else I was successful in convincing everyone that their previous jurisdictional argument was wrong.
I am sick of attention seeking liberal trolls. You simply cannot reason with them.
Lucky for you, Obamacare covers that too. You should see your PCP tout de suite.
Hell I will bring it up:
Section 2 states
“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Good on you, stillontheroad. The argument is as wrong here as it was in the AZ case, but there is a lot to be said for consistency.
Are you saying that article iii section 2 is wrong to say the SC has jurisdiction over any case involving a State being brought to court by the Federal Government? Like is also states any case involving State/State litigation?
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, but it does not have exclusive original jurisdiction.
The reverse of which you would just as strenuously argue, if it suited your purposes. You gotta love lawyers and politicians. Uh, no you don’t.
So The Justice Dept circumvented The Supreme Court in bringing suit against a State? If thats the case the Justice Dept violated the seperation of powers in my book but then, I read the Constitution and understand its meaning not what people think it means nor what people think what the framers of that document may have thought. bUt then, other input is needed here.
Nope. It’s settled law.
Caution: Lawyers at work.
Even though the Constitution says original jurisdiction, the lawyers have added the completely unneeded word exclusive. I would construe the word original as first. Since that’s what it means.
Adding exclusive takes away from the true meaning of the Constitution. Of course, since the ABA is mostly liberal, that does not suprise me.
So Chap, how much is media matters paying you?
TooMuch,
“Original jurisdiction” simply means the power to hear and judge the facts of a case, rather than being only able to take up appeals of issues of law.
The very first Congress (which contained a few of those folks that wrote the Constitution) passed an act granting District courts concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court itself has said that Congress can confer concurrent original jurisdiction on District Courts.
In other words, “original” does not equal “exclusive.”
Had I known exactly what I had to endure here, I would have definitely asked for more.
There is no such thing.
Works for me; just being a devil’s advocate. (Rather appropriate considering the discussion.) And I agree that the District Courts should hear these cases first anyway. It assures a proper appellate path. If the SCOTUS hears the case first, to where do you appeal?
Quite true. Plessy vs Ferguson gave us separate but equal. Almost 60 years later, Brown vs Board of Education reversed that. So, there really is no such thing as stare decisis.
I’m sure Chap is correct in his definitions (He usually is, being a recent law graduate). However, it is sort of curious to see a lawyer, who (if he’s anything like his leftist colleagues) believes in a “living Constitution”, argue that anything is settled law.
Each time I ponder the odds that ObamaCare will be repealed, it gets depressing.
However, there is at least one precedent that engenders hope:
It took nearly 14 years to undue the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.
If that’s possible, then nearly anything should be, let’s hope.
Bad law is bad law no matter how much they think its the “right” thing to do.
I think its the right thing to send my kids to an Ivy League School. I can’t afford it so my neighbor should pay for it. It’s the right thing to do and I don’t care if he goes broke.
Such hogwash is the Obama administration and the liberal mindset. I am sure it makes them feel good about themselves but they will be chasing their tail trying to accomplish such a ridiculous mandate, along with all the other things they need to make right. Where do they stop? Who decides?
The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions …
Thanks for the good news, Mrs. Malkin!
I hadn’t heard where doctors were forbidden from accepting cash? How can they do that, insofar as cash is “legal tender”? Is regular old bartering suddenly outlawed as well?
Following the jurisdictional conversation with interest. I don’t take a stance because I wouldn’t know what I was talking about.
Still wondering:
If this health care idea is so wonderful, why is the force of law needed to impose it?
What gives those in power the moral right to force individuals to manage their health care in any particular way?
(I tried to find the exact way I worded those questions before, but forgot what threads I posted in.)
The scariest part of Obamacare is that it will sentence thousands of cancer patients to death each year when these thousands of desperately ill people can survive if allowed to have some of the cutting edge medicines that are now reaching market. These unnecessary death sentences are already taking place in the UK. The WSJ recently reported on a patient whose doctors said could survive bowel cancer if allowed to have a cutting edge drug that has remarkable success with treating bowel cancer patients. The British health service bureaucrats said that “we only allow chemotherapy”. The doctors say that chemo will only allow the patient to live another 3 months and the patient will be in excruciating pain the whole time. Even worse, if the doctor secures the new drug and allows the patient to have it, both the doctor and patient can face criminal charges. At a minimum, the doctor faces loss of his medical license for saving the life of a patient. And this is precisely what Obama and his bureaucrats have in mind for Americans. Think of what it is like when we go to the state DMV and ask for a new license plate. Now imagine having the same clerks from your local DMV office deciding life or death issues for you. And there you have the Obama plan in a nutshell. The federal jobs of administering the plan will go to political hacks, most likely from your local Democratic County Committee. And these political hacks will decide whether you or a loved one will live or die. It is beyond scary.
How you voted and public statements you make may be held against you. Be afraid.
Chap,
Personally, I don’t care for your argument. So what? I like Burger King over McDonalds but, why should I because they both produce the same product – right? Let’s see you argue that Obamacare has not crossed the line. Really, you are okay – constitutionally – that being forced to buy a product is okay? You are okay – constitutionally – that if I cannot afford to pay for the product forced upon me to buy (and I cannot), I should be penalized on my tax return? Is THAT what you believe our constitution was created for or are you under the impression that because it is signed into law, THAT makes it constitutional?
Just curious? I mean, I know I am simple so, splain it to me.
While I’m glad that the state suit against ObamaCare has passed this initial hurdle. I contend that the attorney’s here are getting too caught up in their squabbles over which court has jurisdiction and why.
To lighten the atmosphere a bit, I’ll leave you with a twist on an old joke.
What do you call an airliner full of attorneys crashing into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?
If you’re a Democrat, Water pollution.
If you’re a Republican, The loss of a valuable asset, the aircraft.
If you’re a Libertarian, A good thing.
If you’re anyone else, Fish food.
Just returned from vacation that included a stop in Sweden. The locals are very proud of their “free health care”. It costs 14 Krona (about $2.00) to see a doctor, & 32 Krona/day to stay in what is essentially a hospital for the poor. After touting how great it is, the next statement was that no one can get an appointment for a doctor or admitted to the hospital because of the back log. But, if someone has private insurance, they go to the head of the line! Yet, no one there seems to see the contradiction. Of course, while there, most people were on what I was told was the”mandatory 5 week vacation”. Wow! Free health care & mandatory 5 weeks off. 60% or better taxes, & total control by the government. Where can I sign up?
to pay for that ‘free’ healthcare. Did any of the Swedes talk about the amount of immigrants from Muslim countries that are there for the ‘free ride’ without regard for paying any taxes? Just curious about the figures…
NestingHawk, thought you would be interested in Missouri’s Proposition C:
In part (and emphasis mine);
“Shall the Missouri Statute be amended to:
Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?”
YES YES YES
Just got back from the polls. All exciting.
Thank you, GladzKravtz! I did read that with interest.
spaceycakes #57–can’t say anything about that, but Sweden’s neighbor & mirror image, Denmark, is advocating some drastic ideas that have the Muslims twisitng in their burkhas. As reported in the London Independent, the minimum wage in Denmark is equivilant to 13 British Pounds/hour. That’s roughly $20.00/hour in real American money. (BTW, just what does Denmark produce to justify $20/hour?)The proposal is to pay non-natives half of what the native Danes earn. On the entire topic of income; if $20.00/hour is the minimum wage, is that also just about the maximum wage? After all, 60% tax applies there as well. I have been told, but cannot verify, that after a Dane earns $15,000 a year, the tax goes to 100%. Really stimulates a person to go out & produce, doesn’t it? Of course, it seems that the culture of that entire georgraphic region frowns on anyone outshining anyone else. As I recall, the musical group ABBA (and I use the term musical, in the broadest sense) was the leading industry in Sweden back when they were popular.
Not true at all. The highest effective (not marginal) rate is capped at 59%.
I did a search at Democratic Underground to see what the DUmmies have had to say regarding this case. Hey, it’s a hobby of mine, LoL. Anywho, it should come as no surprise that on nearly every thread half of the comments are usually attacks on the judge for being a Bush appointee, or attacks on Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Pretty much the standard technique of attack personall when you have no good argument.
Chap #61–I’ll accept your statement at the moment, as I have no other source. The larger picture is what counts. Here’s some other observations & things learned on “What I Did On My Summer Vacation”. In Germany, people are demonstrating because, again as I was told by a local, those people are not satisfied with what they’ve been given. They want everything to be free. People in England are not happy with the NHS, & some advocate that England adopt the German system, wherein only the Government can pay a doctor, & not the patient. Good luck if you try starting a business in England. The personal financial disclosures, restrictions, laws, & union rules make it a very difficult go. Citizens of St. Petersberg have beautiful parks, but not much else, & several families share one apartment. Russians in some professions are still obligated to work for the government for 3 years. Since you are an attorney, you may be interested in learning of the bus driver I met that was an attorney. He made more money driving a bus. The point is that when government constantly interfers with & provides for it’s citizens, those people become dependent, entitled & greedy. How much can satisfy a spolied child? There’s never enough. I truly do not know what is more pathetic; a people who just accept what they’re given, or those who don’t even have the curiosity or drive to even consider there may be something better. There is nothing more useless, unneccesary & repulsive than human beings that have been reduced to chattell by their government.
And they don’t even know it or feel any shame about it. That is what the BHO admin is shooting for.