(CNN) Breaking: Florida Federal Judge Strikes Down Key Parts of Healthcare Bill as Unconstitutional

[Predicto]

So then the issue of PRECEDENCE Is FLUID, not absolute, and not to be taken "that seriously" especially when new facts and situations occur?

That's a little bit simplistic. Let's put it this way. At one time, the Dred Scott decision was a Supreme Court precedent. Pure racial segregation in public schools was deemed perfectly constitutional. And so on.

Sometimes courts make mistakes, and they have to go back and change them.

[SnyderShrugged]

That's a little bit simplistic. Let's put it this way. At one time, the Dred Scott decision was a Supreme Court precedent. Pure racial segregation in public schools was deemed perfectly constitutional. And so on.

Sometimes courts make mistakes, and they have to go back and change them.

Just like to overreaching precedents established for the use of the commerce clause and general welfare clause?

I would love to see boundaries for those framed up.

[NavyDave]

Sometimes courts make mistakes, and they have to go back and change them.

Fortunately for us this judge did not make a mistake that needs correcting.

[aREDSKIN]

That's a little bit simplistic. Let's put it this way. At one time, the Dred Scott decision was a Supreme Court precedent. Pure racial segregation in public schools was deemed perfectly constitutional. And so on.

Sometimes courts make mistakes, and they have to go back and change them.

That was my point. The history of US courts is deep in illogical, immoral, and down right political decision making. Precedence, per se, is not an absolute and driver as many purport it to be.

[Wrong Direction]

So liberals believe that Socialized Healthcare and mandated personal insurance should be a constitutional right.

So the correct ruling by the federal judge in Florida should be ignored by Obama just like he did with the ruling about the oil drilling moratorium being found unconstitutional but is still dragging his feet when it comes to giving out permits, which means he is now in Contempt of court. You can bet the house Obama Admin will be in contempt again when it comes to Obamacare.

Actually, I believe he needs to be ruled in contempt to actually be in contempt. Until then, he's just annoying the opposition. The 26 states would need to go to court seeking to find him in contempt for not following Vinson's ruling in order for that to be true.

At least, that's the story I'm making up.

[Predicto]

That was my point. The history of US courts is deep in illogical, immoral, and down right political decision making. Precedence, per se, is not an absolute and driver as many purport it to be.

That is because we are human beings. Nevertheless, precedent is very important and should only be overturned on very careful consideration. Without it, there is no certainty and reliability in the law, no "rule of law" as it were.

[Prosperity]

That was my point. The history of US courts is deep in illogical, immoral, and down right political decision making.

less than the executive and legislature at least

[twa]

Why is that biased?

If you are counting it as support for the other opinions=bias

as you know standing has nothing to do with the merits of the issues themselves

[DRSmith]

You know it is sort of sad, see cancer heart disease, strokes etc do not care if they are being rtreated with money that comes from a government insurance program or a private one.

Indivuals decide to make their living treating and helping the sick and they need payment for such and that is fine.

Profiteering off illness is bad ie insurance comany making money bby denying claims who is the insurance company more beholdent too, the people who pays their premuims or the investors?

I am not sure what is wrong with the government saying to people take responsiblity for your health care needs.

As for these groups that are right now advertising against the idea of taxing soda or other foods that are causing problems how about instead the government withdraws the subsidies for corn that make it cheap and make the high fructose corn syrup that is put in many foods and put that money into health care and your prices can rise and people will cut back.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If you are counting it as support for the other opinions=bias

as you know standing has nothing to do with the merits of the issues themselves

I was merely saying that its not really 2-2 in court decisions. I wasn't trying to say that anyone was biased. Just saying that there is a real issue with standing, apparently. I don't know that issue, and I don't know if that issue goes to the SC, but its not really accurate to say that its 2-2 in court decisions.

[SnyderShrugged]

I was merely saying that its not really 2-2 in court decisions. I wasn't trying to say that anyone was biased. Just saying that there is a real issue with standing, apparently. I don't know that issue, and I don't know if that issue goes to the SC, but its not really accurate to say that its 2-2 in court decisions.

curious if the number of plaintiffs for the cases has any bearing at all? Does the fact that there were many more states represented in the Florida ruling mean anything?

[twa]

curious if the number of plaintiffs for the cases has any bearing at all? Does the fact that there were many more states represented in the Florida ruling mean anything?

Popular opinion(or as in this case opposition by over half the states) certainly has a effect.

No legal bearing on the facts at hand though....kinda like dismissals on standing....right TSF?

[turdfurguson]

Here is a simple question for all Americans.... please state, in what other area has the federal government ever regulated inactivity?

[Larry]

Here is a simple question for all Americans.... please state, in what other area has the federal government ever regulated inactivity?

Failure to file your income taxes.

Failure to yield. Or to use turn signals.

Criminal negligence.

----------

Here is a simple question for all of the people who keep frantically, desperately, running around in circles searching for some excuse to claim that this law is some kind of vast, unprecedented, Satanic affront to the very fabric of our society:

Why can't y'all just say "It's a bad law"?

Why all the pretzel twisting, tail chasing, reality ignoring effort to come up with some way to claim that it's a completely new, never been done before, attack on the Constitution?

How come you can't disagree with the law, without having to invent some fictional claim of unconstitutionality?

[twa]

It does not appear to be a fictional claim by at least two federal judges

The proposed act is indeed unprecedented...why can't you admit that?

[SnyderShrugged]

Failure to file your income taxes.

Failure to yield. Or to use turn signals.

Criminal negligence.

----------

Here is a simple question for all of the people who keep frantically, desperately, running around in circles searching for some excuse to claim that this law is some kind of vast, unprecedented, Satanic affront to the very fabric of our society:

Why can't y'all just say "It's a bad law"?

Why all the pretzel twisting, tail chasing, reality ignoring effort to come up with some way to claim that it's a completely new, never been done before, attack on the Constitution?

How come you can't disagree with the law, without having to invent some fictional claim of unconstitutionality?

I think the use of the term "inactivity" is inappropriate for this circumstance. Personally, I think he should have used the term "economic non-participation" (which none of the items you listed were)

[Larry]

I think the use of the term "inactivity" is inappropriate for this circumstance. Personally, I think he should have used the term "economic non-participation" (which none of the items you listed were)

Oh, that's right. The federal government has no authority to regulate economic acts, right?

Failure to pay your taxes.

Again: The reason why you are desperately trying to come up with some way of completing the sentence "It's Unconstitutional because . . . " is?

The reason why you are mentally incapable of opposing the law on the grounds of "It's a bad law because . . . " is?

[SnyderShrugged]

Oh, that's right. The federal government has no authority to regulate economic acts, right?

Failure to pay your taxes.

Again: The reason why you are desperately trying to come up with some way of completing the sentence "It's Unconstitutional because . . . " is?

The reason why you are mentally incapable of opposing the law on the grounds of "It's a bad law because . . . " is?

Oh there is the gumpy Larry we all know and love! Hi!!!

Not sure why you said any of that as it relates to my post.

I simply said I would have used different terminology that what turdfurguson used and I stand by that.

There isnt a precedent where the feds mandated participation in economic activity. Hint: paying taxes is considered economic activity.

Not sure what has your grumpy gander up as it was a simple statement. Maybe you need a nap?

[Prosperity]

what if it's not a mandate to participate in an economic activity, but the chance to participate in an activity to exempt your self from one particular tax? (I think you are taxed a few thousand for not getting health insurance)

[SnyderShrugged]

what if it's not a mandate to participate in an economic activity, but the chance to participate in an activity to exempt your self from one particular tax? (I think you are taxed a few thousand for not getting health insurance)

One of the main "selling" points and assurances that the pro-reform side gave was that is "wasnt a tax"

In an interview with Stephanopolis before the bill passed, he said "“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,”

What you describe is a penalty for non-participation.

[twa]

what if it's not a mandate to participate in an economic activity, but the chance to participate in an activity to exempt your self from one particular tax? (I think you are taxed a few thousand for not getting health insurance)

They could have certainly done that,but chose not too to avoid the blowback

What you speak of is basically a tax deduction for ins payments..

[Larry]

There isnt a precedent where the feds mandated participation in economic activity. Hint: paying taxes is considered economic activity.

Utter horsecrap.

1) Paying taxes is economic activity. Because it involves money.

2) Try building a gravel pit without a fence around it, and claiming that you cannot be forced to build one, or held liable if some kid wanders in and kills himself.

3) Try driving a car without a current sticker on the license plate. Or go without paying the property tax on your home. Loudly yell that the constitution forbids the government from punishing people for failing to spend money.

4) Or, for that matter, driving a car without insurance. Or failing to carry workman's comp insurance for your employees. (Cue the "the Constitution forbids the government from passing laws that apply to everybody" lie.)

----------

I'm not at all certain that the steaming pile of sausage that made it through Congress is a good law. But boy, I'm getting tired of seeing the ever-increasing levels of bogosity that people are spewing to try to turn it into a treasonous attack on the Constitution.

So far, I've heard that it's unconstitutional because:

1) It applies to everybody, and the government can only pass laws that only apply to some people.

2) It contains a penalty for non-compliance, and the government can't pass laws that punish people for breaking the law.

3) It punishes people for not doing something.

4) And now, "it punishes people for not doing something, that involves money, but isn't related to taxation".

This law's been out there for what, a year? And these are the biggest complaints you can come up with about it? These obvious jokes?

[twa]

These obvious jokes?

You mean like equal under the law is a joke?

It is up to the govt to justify laws or fines under the rules in place...so far they are failing.

[Larry]

You mean like equal under the law is a joke?

Tell you what. I'll find the part of the Constitution that says that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. You find the part that says that the government cannot pass laws that apply to all citizens.

It is up to the govt to justify laws or fines under the rules in place...so far they are failing.

Excuse me? It's up to the government to prove that it has the authority to pass laws that apply to all citizens? You mean "we've been doing it for the entire history of our nation" doesn't count?

[SnyderShrugged]

Utter horsecrap.

1) Paying taxes is economic activity. Because it involves money.

2) Try building a gravel pit without a fence around it, and claiming that you cannot be forced to build one, or held liable if some kid wanders in and kills himself.

3) Try driving a car without a current sticker on the license plate. Or go without paying the property tax on your home. Loudly yell that the constitution forbids the government from punishing people for failing to spend money.

4) Or, for that matter, driving a car without insurance. Or failing to carry workman's comp insurance for your employees. (Cue the "the Constitution forbids the government from passing laws that apply to everybody" lie.)

----------

I'm not at all certain that the steaming pile of sausage that made it through Congress is a good law. But boy, I'm getting tired of seeing the ever-increasing levels of bogosity that people are spewing to try to turn it into a treasonous attack on the Constitution.

So far, I've heard that it's unconstitutional because:

1) It applies to everybody, and the government can only pass laws that only apply to some people.

2) It contains a penalty for non-compliance, and the government can't pass laws that punish people for breaking the law.

3) It punishes people for not doing something.

4) And now, "it punishes people for not doing something, that involves money, but isn't related to taxation".

This law's been out there for what, a year? And these are the biggest complaints you can come up with about it? These obvious jokes?

LMAO dramatic much!?

and no, just because it involves money it doesnt automatically count as economic activity. In fact taxation removes money from the economy in most cases.

sorry Larry, in my opinion you are off in this one. (like that amounts to much in your view, but thats the way it is)

---------- Post added February-6th-2011 at 02:27 PM ----------

just for clarification purposes, lets review commonly held definitions of "economic activity

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Economic+Activity

economic activity

The production and distribution of goods and services at all levels. Economic activity and expected future levels of it have an important influence on security prices because of the interrelationship between economic activity and corporate profits, inflation, interest rates, and other variables. One frequently used measure of economic activity is the gross domestic product.

same one at business section of yourdictionary.com

http://business.yourdictionary.com/economic-activity

In all of the definitions that I quickly found in Google (they were all essentially the same, btw)

The common denominator is "The production and distribution of goods and services at all levels."

Taxation neither distributes or produces a good or service, therefore it is not economic activity