Hhs Upheld By Supreme Court

[brianthephysicist]

[url="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-28-10-17-22"]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-28-10-17-22[/url]

Sad day. We've got even [i]more[/i] praying to do now.

[Clare~Therese]

But Congress could still overturn it or whatever, right? That's what my brother said.

But [u]yes we should keep praying[/u].
And if it just continues to be upheld into the future, then like the Apostles in jail we could "[i]rejoice for they had been found worthy to suffer for the Name of Jesus[/i]."

[XIX]

Blame Canada.

[Annie12]

[Papist]

Judge Roberts sided with the Libs. Again, Bush failed us.

[Annie12]

i was SO surprised to hear that because I though since he was the conservative one, he would know better.

[Papist]

[img]http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/428416_10151078604420530_1718378406_n.jpg[/img]

[eagle_eye222001]

This is greatly troubling for the future of America.

It seems this was largely upheld due to Congress's ability to tax, however has the American people ever been taxed on the absence of something?

Also the ruling makes Obama a HUGE LIAR on raising taxes. He claimed he wouldn't. Well here you go Mr. President. A whole Supreme Court ruling stating that you raised taxes.

Robert's said in the ruling that
[quote]We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the[/quote]



Also,

[quote]Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for thecommon Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Congress may tax and spend.[/quote]

------


The ruling does seem correct. I am not sure how to argue against the power of Congress to tax.

However this huge expansion of the federal government is quite troubling.

[PhuturePriest]

Of course we can overturn it, but will we? We have been trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade since it was first parseed over forty years ago. It's not a matter of can we, it's a matter of will it even be possible? Overturning things requires a lot, and it seems every time we try it doesn't work.

[PhuturePriest]

The worst part is it came down to an apparently devout and pious Catholic guy and he [i]voted it in!!!! [/i]Oh, what a proud day to be thrown in the group of "American Catholics"...

[Brother Adam]

I have been trying to figure out why I didn't feel as angry as I thought I should have when the announcement was made this morning. I think I agree with this: [url="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/"]http://www.redstate....n-john-roberts/[/url]

1. The individual mandate is a tax, even though Obama said it is not.
2. Roberts called him out on his lie and told us it is a tax, but because it is a tax it is constitutional.
3. Obama just gave middle class Americans one of the biggest tax increases in history.
4. Democrats lost one of their main rallying points to keep Obama in office if the courts struck down the ACA.
5. This is still a hugely unpopular bill. How do you get rid of a hugely unpopular bill? Vote for new executive and legislative leaders.

Ideally we will see a GOP run house, senate, and executive branch in November. That in itself though will have problems because:

The Catholic Church is not opposed to health care reform. As Catholics we are not opposed to the ACA as reform, except for its significant problematic portions that need to be struck out of the law. Roberts is forcing the American people to deal with that.

I'm still forming my opinion on this though and [color=#ff0000]admit I could be completely wrong on the reasoning in the article. We need time to digest this.[/color]

[Seven77]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340899529' post='2449980']
Judge Roberts sided with the Libs. [i]Again, Bush failed us.[/i]
[/quote]

epically so.

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340899529' post='2449980']
Judge Roberts sided with the Libs. Again, Bush failed us.
[/quote]

Bush didn't fail you. This is one of the most conservative courts in decades. Maybe not every law that you dislike is unconstitutional.

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-119.cfm"]http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-119.cfm[/url]

[eagle_eye222001]

[size=4][quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1340903078' post='2450006']
.....

The ruling does seem correct. I am not sure how to argue against the power of Congress to tax.

However this huge expansion of the federal government is quite troubling.
[/quote]


Actually I know exactly how to argue against it.

[url="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf"]And I quote the dissent[/url]

[quote]This case is in one respect difficult: it presents two questions of first impression. The first of those is whether
failure to engage in economic activity (the purchase of health insurance) is subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. Failure to act does result in an effect on commerce, and hence might be said to come under this Court’s “affecting commerce” criterion of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. But in none of its decisions has this Court extended the Clause that far. The second questionis whether the congressional power to tax and spend, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1, permits the conditioning of
a State’s continued receipt of all funds under a marseive state-administered federal welfare program upon its acceptance of an expansion to that program. [b]Several of our opinions have suggested that the power to tax and spend [/b]
[b]cannot be used to coerce state administration of a federal program, but we have never found a law enacted under [/b]
[b]the spending power to be coercive.[/b] Those questions are difficult.

...The case is easy and straightforward, however, in another respect. What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the
text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the
220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to
private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits
upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal
Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal
programs. That clear principle carries the day here. [b] The striking case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942), which[/b]
[b]held that the economic activity of growing wheat, even for one’s own consumption, affected commerce sufficiently[/b]
[b]that it could be regulated[/b], always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence. To go beyond that, and to say the failure to grow wheat (which is not an economic activity, or any activity
at all) nonetheless affects commerce and therefore can be federally regulated, is to make mere breathing in and out
the [b]basis for federal prescription and to extend federal power to virtually all human activity.[/b]
[/quote][/size]

Edited June 28, 2012 by eagle_eye222001