Today the US Appeals court in the 4th Circuit rejected Virginia’s standing in filing suit challenging Obamacare. That is the story. The wishful thinking is that this means the court supports the individual mandate.
Read this story. It has two paragraphs that are mutually exclusive.
This paragraph.
The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court’s decision to declare the law unconstitutional and is the second appellate court ruling in favor of the government’s right to require individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
And then this.
Thursday’s ruling didn’t get to whether the individual mandate in the health care law is constitutional; it strictly examined Virginia’s right to sue. The court ruled that the state law does not create the kind of conflict that allows for a challenge in federal court.
Ummm. Both these things can’t be true. What sloppy reporting.
September 8, 2011 at 7:57 pm
The fact that it requires two-thirds of the states to ratify anything that may become constitutional and two-thirds of the states are rejecting Obamacare makes Obamacare unconstitutional.
September 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Whereas, the worker does not constitute his employer’s business but sells his body for bread, he may be fired for not doing his employer's bidding. The sovereign person constitutes his government from the first moment of his existence as a sovereign human being endowed by our Creator with personhood and unalienable rights, when two become one. His conscience is an expression of his sovereign personhood. His expression of his sovereign personhood is his freedom to exercise his response to the gift of Faith from God, (Freedom of Religion, the free exercise thereof, which may not be prohibited), his freedom to speak, to write to peaceably assemble to petition the government for redress. This peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress may be at his workplace during work hours as he does his duties, but will not violate the precepts of his good conscience. His civil rights may not be impinged, prohibited or forbidden BY HIS GOVERNMENT. Any attempt at proscribing a person's expression of his conscience is tyranny. Tyranny obliterates true constitutional government, a government that has been and is constituted by this same person, this same person whose conscience rights are exhibited through his civil rights, these many ways, as the expression of his sovereign personhood endowed by our Creator.
September 8, 2011 at 8:05 pm
If Obamacare was worth anything good, the people would embrace it. Because Obamacare smells to high heaven of corruption, the people reject it. The people have a sovereign right to reject corruption or tyranny of any stripe. The court is not allowing the voice of the people, the will of the people to be served.
September 8, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Rather than just saying who does not have standing why can't these learned jurists clearly state who HAS standing?
I am pretty sure there are many who would like to know that.
September 9, 2011 at 12:10 am
Each state can nullify obamacare. It really is that simple. My bald lil' gov, of Florida, Rick Scott, can convince the republican majority legislature to tell obama, 'Your law ain't applicable here."
September 9, 2011 at 3:00 pm
"Rather than just saying who does not have standing why can't these learned jurists clearly state who HAS standing?"
Federal Courts can only decide controversies before them. Otherwise it would be an advisory opinion and Article III Courts can't do that.
However, it is safe to infer from the opinion and standing precedent that an individual who was forced to buy insurance or pay a penalty because of ObamaCare would have standing.