Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional

The ruling breaks apart the obligation of individuals to carry health insurance, the section known as individual mandate.

WSJ

A federal judge ruled Monday that a central plank of the health law violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration’s signature legislative accomplishment.

In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

The lawsuit, brought by Virginia’s attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli, is the first court ruling against the law since President Barack Obama signed it in March. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the overhaul, and judges in two of those cases ruled in favor of the Obama administration.

While Monday’s decision creates a headache for the law’s supporters, it doesn’t mean that states or the federal government must stop implementing the law.

Judge Hudson didn’t grant the plaintiffs’ request for an immediate nationwide injunction against the entire law or against the requirement that most Americans carry insurance. That requirement begins in 2014.

The judge also said that his ruling only strikes down the requirement to carry insurance, known as the individual mandate, and the provisions of the law that are directly dependent on it.

The Supreme Court is ultimately expected to settle the issue after the Virginia case and other similar ones wind their way though the courts.

Obama administration officials say the ruling amounts to an attack on one of the law’s most popular provisions—the ban on insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions. They say that piece of the law cannot work unless coupled with a requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance.

The administration has played down the outcome of this particular case, characterizing it as having received outsize importance because of Mr. Cuccinelli’s visibility.

“We are confident that this law is constitutional, and we are confident that the Supreme Court when, and if, it hears this case will agree that it’s constitutional,” an administration official said.

For opponents of the law, Monday’s ruling is the first victory in a multifaceted attack designed to help Republicans take back the White House in 2012. Republicans see the court battle as one way to show their opposition to voters who have shown skepticism toward the law.

The health overhaul is designed to expand insurance to 32 million Americans by giving lower earners tax credits to help them buy insurance and widening eligibility for the Medicaid federal-state insurance program for the poor. Without the requirement to carry insurance, the Obama administration predicts, the law would leave an additional 16 million Americans uninsured.

Judge Hudson, of the Eastern District of Virginia, said the individual mandate “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

He added: “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

Separately, federal Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Fla., will hear arguments Thursday in a challenge brought by officials in 20 states, and he could offer the clearest indication yet of how he will rule.

Advertisement

NO Rights for Terrorists!

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 5, 2010

So I have been thinking, with all this terror that exists today around the world, where mindless idiots blow themselves up in order to avenge their countries and fight our freedoms in the western world, we should all be worried.  So, does the government say.  Reading through government papers and documents like the MIAC report, the Patriot Act and listening to talking heads on television, and politicians from 7 developed nations in the world, I began to wonder.  Who do we need to be afraid off and why?

The threat of terrorism as portrayed by the oppressor governments does not exist.  There aren’t terrorists out there who want to kill us for our freedoms.  White Al-Qaeda does not exist either.  The Tea Party is not a racist movement.  The militias are not anarchists as Homeland Security says.  Libertarians, Ron Paul followers, Tea Partiers, WeAreChange and other people like that are not violent as the Main Stream Media preaches.  As we found out today, the Hutaree Militia was released with bond, because the judge said their right to free speech cannot be violated, and also because there was not any proof that they were planning to attack the government.  The whole war on terror is a sham, to suppress our civil liberties, rights and even our duties.  Instead of closing the borders, effectively inspecting cargos and protecting us at home, the governments simply decides to fight a war against an invisible enemy, an enemy that can exist forever.

That is why the government itself plans and executes false-flag attacks, in order to keep the boogie-man alive.  And when one boogie-man goes away, a new one comes alive.  The only time when groups of citizens commit violent events is when they are incited by government infiltrators.  The recent Times Square incident where a Nissan was supposedly holding a bomb was all a lie that the media gladly hyped.  How do I know that?  Well, if one studies the history of terrorism, it is clear that terrorists always want to get attention from the government and the media.  So what a better way to get that attention than perpetrating attacks on civilians or civilian targets?  That is why when the government orchestrates attacks, they are greatly exaggerated at first, and then quietly labeled as misunderstandings.  That is why when a supposed attack happens, citizens are immediately labeled as responsible, (Tea Party members) but then quietly dismissed as non guilty.  It occurred with the Hutaree Militia, Joe Stack, some of the 9/11 hijackers, and countless other citizens who are first accused of violating laws, but then released because there is nothing to prove the claims.

Previous to 9/11, the United States, Spain, Ireland and other countries used to give the least amount of air time and importance to real terrorist attacks exactly for the same reason mentioned above: All the terrorists want is attention in order to get what they demand.  But after 9/11, suddenly everything is terrorism and everyone is a terrorist.  However, the real terrorists are easily let in, flown in and out with the help of intelligence agencies (the underwear bomber was let on the plane by an intelligence officer).

So who do we need to fear?  Let’s review.  The governments have decided they have the power -although we did not give it to them- to label anyone they wish as a terrorist.  This means you, me or anyone we know can be called a terrorist and be accused of terrorism or of  inciting it, get stripped of rights such as due process, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and so on.  As if that was not enough, today I read on the press that the government intends to take away the rights of those citizens who are found to be terrorists.  And who has the prerogative to decide a person is a terrorist?  The government.

Flip-flopper Joe Lieberman has been pushing this idea for a while, but it now seems to be picking up more steam than before due to the false-flag terror attempt in New York City.  Lieberman has championed the causes of the government for the past 9 years and now he is proposing to rid us of our rights if he or Obama or Homeland Security believes we belong to a terrorist group.  “If you’re attacking your fellow Americans in an act of war you lose the rights that come with citizenship,” Lieberman told reporters.  That is right.  Not only has the government the power to call you a terrorist, detain you indefinitely, torture you, and make you disappear.  Now, Mr. flip-flopper wants to rape the Constitution and simply turn citizens into what would I say… Prisoners of war?

According to the Raw Story, Lieberman stated that “any individual apprehended, American citizen, who is found to be involved with a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights.”  Again, who has the power to designate a citizen a terrorist?  That is right, the government.  Do you see where my concern comes from?  “If you have joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States to try to kill Americans I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” said Lieberman.

In a separate event, Barack Hussein Obama spoke at a commencement and arrogantly warned the audience and those who watched the event to stop criticizing the government, especially his Health Care Reform.  This criticism, he said, is not kosher because ‘we are all the government’ and in a Democracy, if we criticize the government we impair ourselves.  How about that?  Mr. Obama forgot two things.  First, the U.S. is not a Democracy, and second, that in a free Republic, the rights of the people such as freedom of speech, come first.  If we think the government is doing a bad job, we say it!  Neither will Obama’s warnings nor Lieberman’s attacks on citizens will deter our right to denounce the government, the corporations that control it or the existence of false-flag terrorist attacks.  You can take that to the bank!