Obamacare Might Be Heading Back To The Supreme Court: Unconstitutional

By: Michael Lotfi
152
Obama
A little known secret about the President’s healthcare agenda began leaking a few months ago. The mainstream media has completely abandoned the issue, until recently. However, signs are beginning to point to hemorrhagic status as often times small leaks take up this route.ObamaWhat’s the secret? When crafting the legislation, democrats and the President made a huge mistake. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, states were given the option to decide whether or not they wanted to set up an insurance exchange, which each state would run. Those states who choose not to set up their own insurance exchange would have a federal exchange set up in its place. States that do choose to set up an exchange are to fine employers who  do not provide insurance under the employer-mandate penalty. This money is then returned to the employees to purchase insurance through the state run exchange.


Here’s the flaw. So far more than two dozen states have opted out of the state exchange. Tennessee, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma to name a few. President Obama and democratic leadership failed to add this same penalty to states who opt out of the state exchange in place of the federal exchange. Therefore, the dozens of states that have already opted out cannot be fined under the employer-mandate penalty. This would have left Obamacare in  shambles.

So, Obama went to the IRS and had them re-write the healthcare law. However, this is unconstitutional. Only Congress can make such changes to law. A lawsuit has been making its way to the Supreme Court  filed by the state of Oklahoma challenging this illegal power grab by the IRS.

I have been following this development for quite some time. Communications director for US Congressman Scott Desjalais (R-TN), Robert Jameson told me in an interview a couple months ago;

“They made a huge mistake here. Congressman Desjarlais will be taking action on the issue and watching it closely in the Supreme Court. If we are successful in upholding this as unconstitutional it will make the states who have opted out of the state run exchange very attractive to businesses who bring jobs and prosperity. It will also make Obamacare even more unsustainable than it already is, which will leave the door open to defunding it.”

Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General, just took a major step forward in having his case heard by the Supreme Court. A federal judge in Okalahoma ruled last Monday that Oklahoma has the legal standing to sue the federal government over the subsidies in the federally run exchanges (see video above). This is the first time a federal judge has ruled against the Obama administration with regards to the Patient Care Act in quite some time. Opponents of the Patient Care Act will certainly keep a watchful eye as this story continues to develop.

 

Tell us what you think in the comments below-

The following two tabs change content below.
Michael Lotfi is a political analyst and strategist living in Nashville, Tennessee where he works as the executive director for the Tenth Amendment Center (TN). Lotfi also writes a column at The Washington Times called "American Millennial". Lotfi graduated in the top 5% of his class with honors from Belmont University, an award winning, private university located in Nashville, Tennessee.

  • fred4dallas

    I am of the opinion that being a community organizer does not give you experience to do anything other than to be an orator. That is why Obama’s administration is falling apart. What does he know about health care for an entire country? He surrounded himself with friends and black people who are no qualified to the positions he gave them. How can this healthcare act work? he needs to be held accountable for all of the crimes which have been committed. He has laughed at the citizens of this country. I pray to God this thing falls apart and Impeachment process begins.

    • Keith Welnicke

      he isnt being laughed at by the majority of the country only by the loud and uneducated minority. As soon as they put Bush on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, then we will talk. Until then please go back to your bunker.

      • SeattleMom

        Sorry to tell you but the majority are not liberals. Obama won because of uneducated voters and welfare recipients not to mention voter fraud. The man is not a leader and he is far worse than Bush ever was. He continued every single policy Bush put in place and made things worse, he has more drone kills than Bush did. And let’s not forget what a laughing stock to the world he is, the Russian are mocking this fool and he is too weak to even know it…

        • mike

          There are many reasons Obama was re-elected. You mentioned a couple. People who don’t want to lose their entitlement benefits and people who are too uneducated and blind to see him for what he is.

          But one thing that can’t be underestimated is the gamble by establishment Republicans to annoint Mitt Romney as the candidate almost from the beginning. There were several acceptable alternatives but instead they tried to combat the biggest campaign issue, ObamaCare, with a guy who wanted the same thing. A guy who had no consistent or clear position having been on both sides of almost every issue. The whole Republican field was a disaster either on their own or in the way other Republican’s attacked them to the point they were too damaged to be electable.

          Until Republicans nominate a candidate that clearly represents a small government, fiscally conservative candidate who doesn’t want to send us into every global conflict the UN will give us the green light for, there’s really not much of a chance of winning and an even smaller chance of actually improving the country. John McCain’s current voting record in Congress has made me ashamed that I voted for him in 08 even though there’s not a chance in hell I would have voted for Obama.

          We are in such a hole at this point that we can no longer afford the “better of two evils” argument. We need to start with the primary process and just go with “not evil”. And if the two major parties can’t muster a “not evil” candidate, then we as voters need to look to third parties and not be intimidated by the FUD that says a vote for anyone who is not a Republican or a Democrat is a vote for “the other guy”.

          • Houston Retrievers

            Yes there was.. >Ron Paul, but common sense didnt win on that one even though it was blatantly clear he was the only one worth having as president.

          • Mike

            I agree on Ron Paul. But by the time he made it all the way through the Republican primary he was so battered by the Republican establishment he would have been hard to elect. From the possible manipulation of primary voting to the removal of delegates and the ridiculously targeted rules changes, it became obvious that what they had been saying all along, “he can’t win” was a self-fulfilling prophecy. He couldn’t win because they wouldn’t let him.

          • Lexie

            Ron Paul was not and is not a “conservative.” He’s a libertarian, and there’s a big difference. Libertarians have more in common with liberals than with conservatives, and their silly worldview would lead to destruction faster than you can imagine.

            God instituted human government for two reasons: to protect the innocent and prosecute the guilty. Conservatism recognizes that evil exists and steps up to an adult view of government that reflects reality. Libertarianism, by refusing to acknowledge God’s design for government, starts on the wrong premise. By downplaying evil, they think they can side-step it–but that’s not the way it works in real life. “We’re not going to pay for it” is their motto when adults abuse drugs and neglect their children, but we’re NOT going to allow neglected urchins to run our streets in packs…so we WILL end up paying for it. And the payment–once society deteriorates to the point that government intervention dawns on the libertarian–could look a lot like martial law. (And I don’t know a single libertarian who wouldn’t BEG for that if their lives and / or property was at risk from the evil elements that they refuse to recognize or control.) As for the notion that we can retreat to true isolationism–that ship sailed LONG ago. We are economically bound to the entire world and the threats to our physical security are too real to ignore, so there’s no going back.

            We might as well grow up and vote for conservatives where we find them–and implement some restrictions on our lawmakers that push constitutional conservatism into their bloodstream before they set foot in D.C. I’d start by making them live under the same laws they pass for everyone else, stay in session until they pass a balanced budget, and forfeit their cushy retirement benefits–retroactive to the oldest living elected official.

          • Mike

            Libertarianism does NOT share ideals with liberals. That is a complete misunderstanding of the position. Libertarianism is less about liberal and conservative and more about liberty and tyranny. So there are liberal and conservative libertarians just as there are liberal and conservative authoritarians… commonly known today as progressives and neocons. However, I think when you become less dismissive of the libertarianism in general as something that only appeals to young idealists and do a little more research you will find that libertarianism can be very consistent with a Christian world view.

            Part of the problem is the false idea that the role of government is to “protect the innocent”. The role of government is to uphold the rule of law. A rule of law that is just is one that protects the innocent because it is the natural law we are endowed by God with. If you relate that back to the Bible you will find that the original construction of government under Jewish law is a set of judges tasked with the application of the Mosaic law. Their job was not to protect the innocent, but to uphold the law… which protected the innocent by virtue of it’s perfection. It is the people who petitioned God for a King to protect them and to make them like other nations. One who would make the laws and define the government.

            Besides, while I am assuming that you would call yourself a Christian, and I know I am a Christian, who should be the one to define what that means? Your church or the United States government? If you say it is your church then you have given an inherently libertarian answer. If you answer the government, then I say you are missing the entire point of the religious liberty people sought by coming to this country in the first place. You would undoubtably begin to establish the Christianity that you practice, which may be something I disagree with. Wars have been fought over the differences within Christianity. The Inquisition killed more people who identified with Christianity as “heretics” than it did those who rejected God altogether or who worshipped pagan gods. History and Scripture are not on the side of your argument.

          • Mike

            And if you think Ron Paul is not a conservative, then your definition of conservative is incorrect.

          • Tom223

            True, It was great to see him get so far despite all the counter effort of the Republican establishment. Making it to the number two position against those odds shows that there are still some Americans who are awake and they are not a complete minority.

        • Jsg

          Yessssss

        • Keith Welnicke

          Keep thinking that, and you will get run over by a train next election cycle. Cant you see the writing on the wall? I could vote either way (and I have) for anyone of the parties…Im not lazy, I work in a foundry and make a modest 75-90k a year. How many people that voted for Obama are like me…..many more than you think. We are hard workers and I can say for myself that I have never took any hand out.

          • Mike

            75-90k is not a modest living. I’m assuming you are some type of manager or there is a severe shortage of workers to achieve that level of income?

          • Houston Retrievers

            So your a mommas boy….

          • Tom223

            You may have never taken a handout but you support a government that prefers handouts rather than hands up. Obama wants people dependent on the Democrat party for all aspects of life. He wants a one-size-fits-all existence for all of us and you support that. It’s called socialism – centralized government power. The Government is everything and the individual is nothing. You should take stock in your actions and take some responsibility for the consequences of your actions. You support Obama, you support an end of freedom.

          • Fran

            Obama might have won the first time, but the second time was voter fraud on steroids! How can 110% of the voting public in a specific county in Ohio vote? Did it not occur to anyone with 1/4 of a brain that there is only a 100% count. That’s who voted for Obama….all the uneducated who don’t understand what 100% means or those that can’t count.

        • Houston Retrievers

          You left out immigrants who need a soup line

        • Jenx

          And cellphone recipients.

      • knockie

        Loud and Uneducated people is a perfect name for those that voted Obama into office. You can’t really believe he’s doing a good job? You should be mad as hell for all the promises he’s broken… heck you should be just as upset and calling for his impeachment the same way I’m sure you did for Bush for all his “War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”. He’s doubled down on most of the bush agendas that you I’m sure cried foul on…

        • Keith Welnicke

          Yes I did, I dont like the drone strikes. No one person is perfect.

        • Jenx

          Has Obama done ANYTHING good for America?

          • Jay Jefferson

            Sure. He’s taken plenty of vacations.

      • Talker

        Here is fact: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
        Even at his HIGHEST approval only 69% approved. At this point, less than half, and his average to date, again is less than half.
        Go back to your bunker? Really, it is probably safer there anyhow, since Obama took office how many domestic attacks happened since 9-11? While Bush was in office ZERO, let me tell give you a hint, it starts with “fiv” and ends with an “e”. MR. Obama is not someone that I would give the title president too. That title actually demands some sort of RESPECT. He has not done anything but bail out, spend more, send away, deflate, and trash the American Citizens, and turn the USA into the laughing giant… yeah Obama he has done a GREAT job, keep supporting him. Keep freebasing all this liberal and democratic trash like the drug it is. It is dumbing down America.

        • Keith Welnicke

          No domestic attacks while Bush was in office huh? I guess over 3 k people just dropped over dead on 9/11 eh?

          • Mike

            I don’t seem to remember Bush ever making the case for drone bombing American citizens. He laid the groundwork for it to happen, but Obama carried that ball across the goal line. And for as bad as the Patriot Act is and has been misused, the Obama administration codified indefinite detention with no charge or trial. That is pretty tough to top.

          • Houston Retrievers

            He didnt impose behavior modification techniques that would make stalin and hitler foam at the mouth….

          • JanuaryDove

            These people that attacked on 9/11 were NOT from our country; therefore, it wasn’t a domestic attack! It was international!! DUH!

          • guvment cheese

            You do realise the difference between foreign and domestic eh keith?

          • Talker

            Reading with comprehension helps, I said since 9-11. Good try, lets stick with facts now.
            I do not think I need to go into the difference between foreign and domestic seeing as the people below already pointed that out.

      • Joe Potus

        So until Bush is up for war crimes Obama can continue those war crimes into his second term and double down? You seem to think the democrat majority congress of 2006-2010 had no part in funding the wars, let alone the Bawny Fwank housing crash of 2008. Keep on hating us little guys Welnicke. Obama had all three branches for two years and the democrats had the purse strings for 4 and yet banks can trade our mortgages to each other for pennies on the dollar because Obama cleared their balance sheets by taking on the “bad” mortgages. Why do we get no option of right of first refusal? Because Fwank mandated his lover in charge of the pseudo government clearing house that all mortgages to be free of such language (to make them more liquid for the derivatives that destroyed American jobs). Why not some REAL change we can believe in. Obama could mandate that “administration” change in 5 minutes. You need to wake up and realize you are defending the worst of BOTH parties when you fail to cut through to the truth. What are you doing here of all places anyway? You must be a government union irs agent or one of Lyndsey’s cabin boys to be trolling Ben. Independent free thinkers don’t join factions. wake up and join us. It will feel a lot better having a pair.

        • JanuaryDove

          Really? Then what are YOU doing here??? But while you ARE here, think about it! We have to start SOMEWHERE, so why not start at the very TOP. It will make ALL of the next steps that must be taken just a little bit easier to accomplish!

      • Houston Retrievers

        You are not the majority, you are just the loud mouth minority that is more active. The majority is disenfranchised and will kick your asses back the hole you crawled out of if this shtf.

      • Tom223

        Mistake. Neither party has a monopoly on war crimes. Both sides are guilty. Under what authority did Obama have the right to use the US military to assassinate Kadafi. He didn’t have UN sanctions, he didn’t have any congressional approval like Bush did. Obama has killed over 100 children with drone strikes. Bush was a disaster but Obama is even worse. Don’t vote for Republican or Democrat.

    • Joshua Barrett

      friends and black people? are you serious, are not half of his advisors right wingers? What does being black have anything to do with it? I am not going to even bother…

      Have you ever considered its the entire “establishment” and not just one political party?

      yes lets waste money on an impeachment, so he can be replaced by another establishment hack. Yeah. bright idea.

      • lucy lieu

        my cat would be a better choice for POTUS-bring on the hacks.

      • Matthew Pleasant

        I agree with you Joshua. Using language like “friends and black people” is very broad and it gives liberals arsenal for debate. It doesn’t matter who’s in power at this point, Romney would have taken us down the same route. The repubs are just mad because it’s not their guy doing it. Bush started the spying BS, and there wasn’t a peep from the right wing spinsters. Anyone who believes that anyone in the kingdom of corruption is looking out for them needs some serious counseling.

        • Houston Retrievers

          Oh please a lot of people on the right were out against Bush and comp.

      • Paula McCauley

        Obama has appointed 49 Communists and Muslim Radicals in his administration, Most as Czars, and a few in charge of key departments. Those are his backer along with George Soros, Timothy Ayers and other Corporate Marxists in the Bilderberg group. He has the most corrupt administration ever in the history of this Country. He is just another puppet for their NWO Agenda, which is to destroy the majority of mankind and he’s trying very hard to carry it out. We need to clean out the White House and exterminate the All of the RATS that are out to exterminate us! We start at the top and work down through his gang of eight and the rest of the corruption on both sides of the aisles.

        • franel

          don’t forget ALL the members of the Muslim Brotherhood appointed to Czar jobs who have acess to the WH

      • genemcleroy

        Impeach and try for treason. It’s time congress got a strong message, they work for us!

    • January Dove

      If Obamacare isn’t defunded by the limited time allowed, and Obama is impeached, it will have to go through legal channels to get it reversed. If Obama gets IMPEACHED, then anything he passed during his term will automatically be thrown out! THAT’S REALLY the way to go! I recently found that out. I’m surprised that I and everyone I have spoke to, didn’t know this either! SPREAD the word! I’ve been commenting on Facebook to let people know the difference. The Public SHOULD be made aware of this!!

      • cheryl

        actually, I believe everything would continue unless he is determined to be illegitimate…not legally able to run for the position….ie., not a natural born citizen….or found guilty of some felony prior.to 2008….say maybe ID and Soc Sec fraud?!?!?!

      • http://inthisdimension.com/ Alexander Scipio

        Nope. If he is just impeached & convicted nothing changes in whatever legislation he has signed. If he is found – within his term of office – THEN everything he did will be tossed. And we’ll see race riots worse than 1968.

    • Jenx

      AMEN FRED!!!!!

    • http://inthisdimension.com/ Alexander Scipio

      If you think Obama is “failing,” you don’t understand his goals. His programs are working for HIM. The mistake is in thinking his goals are pro-freedom, pro-liberty and pro-American. They are NOT.

  • KCTed

    When the SCOTUS ruled ObamaCare a tax the entire thing should have been negated because, according to the Constitution, taxes originate in the House (Article1. Section 7. Clause 1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives). So, according to the rule of law, ObamaCare is illegal.

    • RedStateMichigan

      KCTed is exactly correct!! They raised it in the Senate because they had an unstoppable majority of Democrats in the Senate. Because they knew only the HOUSE can raise Tax legislation, they used the word “MANDATE” trying to get around their unconstitutional law….. but the SCOTUS was about to rule against it…. so they admitted it WAS IN FACT A TAX. Why the illegal raising of the bill was not there and then truck down is beyond me. The second their legal team agreed NobamaCare was a TAX, it should have been killed there and then…. WTF SCOTUS?

      • Donna Cox

        You are also incorrect. SCOTUS, any Court can not rule on an issue unless it has a challenge presented to it. The legal job of Courts and especially SCOTUS, is to review legal challenges, correct them if errors are found, or send them back to the lower Courts of origin as in good standing by law. Until people understand that obamacare has to be challenged on the fact that it is designated a tax, there fore it is unconstitutional because all spending and tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives it has to stand.

    • Houston Retrievers

      It was judicial activism and it should be tossed out simply for that.

    • terrorist96

      There is already a pending case about exactly this. It is called Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This needs to be mentioned more.

    • Donna Cox

      But, there has to be a challenge on that issue. The Court can not rule on something that has not been challenged.

      • KCTed

        Challenged or not, it is still unconstitutional. There needs no SCOTUS opinion now that the mandate is in fact, a tax.
        The SCOTUS defined it as a tax and laws raising Revenue (taxes) cannot originate in the Senate.
        They have to originate in the House and the Constitution is crystal clear about that.

    • nynature

      Find a good lawyer and initiate a case based on that!! Oh that’s right, you need lots and lots of money………which they have stolen. Ensuring those that have carved out a nice living, will soon be equal with everyone.

      • http://inthisdimension.com/ Alexander Scipio

        We the People also lack “standing” to bring that suit. It MUST be Congress. But — Boehner..?? Nada.

  • dan

    when it smells like a rat, and squeaks like a rat, and is backed by even bigger rats….it should be dumped in the trash..Obamacare is a ‘rat’…as in R-ravages A-all T-takers

    • Jenx

      Set the traps!

  • john f

    Healthcare is not stated in our USA Constitution. Therefore, the feds have NO jurisdiction in this matter. “Obamacare” is color of law.

    • Houston Retrievers

      exactly and by definition not law at all

  • barry1817

    love it. Maybe this can make Pelosi spin over in her cushy congressional chair and repeat we have to pass it so we know what is in it.

    Personally, any person that voted for this bill and did not read it should be forced out of office for malfeasance. You can’t do your job as a congressman if you vote on something that you didn’t read. Take that back, if you vote for something that you didn’t read and understand.

    The only vote that one can take on such legislation would be NO, or present.

  • hgant3

    So now that Obamacare has wasted tens of thousands of hours of time, and billions to the taxpayers, it’s beginning to surface that it is nothing more than an extortion attempt against the American taxpayer by its own government. Its threatened the livelihood of workers being cut back to thirty hour work weeks, and takes more tax dollars away from the people who earn it to be given to the majority welfare lot that actually still have the right to vote and get even more of a free ride. All so a joke of a president can buy their vote with our money. And this militant is still in office?

    • Tom223

      You are correct.

    • nynature

      Those that receive entitlements are really the free people and those who work are really the slaves.

  • http://inthisdimension.com/ Alexander Scipio

    Obamacare was made unconstitutional by Roberts the instant he called it a “tax.” All Taxes must originate in the Hours (Art I, Sec 7, FIRST line.) Obamacare originated in the Senate. Ipso facto unconstitutional. Why the House isn’t taking THIS suit to SCOTUS I have NO idea….

    • larman

      I have been asking the same thing…

    • spencerjones43

      Because the House does not want to do away with it. Boehner does nothing but pay lip service to The People in order to meet his own agendas. He is a spineless coward and a liar, no more and no less than Obama.

      • ulyssesmsu

        Until Boehner is removed, nothing will change. Goodbye, America.

    • Donna Cox

      It needs a legal challenge on the grounds it is unconstitutional, because it is based on creation of a tax, yet it seems to be hidden from view, ignored or something. I shall e-mail and make phone calls.

  • http://inthisdimension.com/ Alexander Scipio

    For the rocket scientists of the GOP: When you make a “Service” a “Right,” you are giving the government the right to FORCE the delivery OF that service. This is called “slavery” and is prohibited by the 13th Amendment. How ironic is it that the first Black president overturns the first anti-slavery amendment? How stupid is it that the GOP hasn’t yet figured this out?

    • Steve Rogers

      Alexander, you are right philosophically, but wrong about the GOP. Every entitlement program violates this principle. That’s why the democrats (and some republicans) who created food stamps, employment insurance, and social security, to name a few, called them “entitlements” – they come with corresponding government obligations that the supreme court has upheld, as opposed to “rights”, which come with corresponding government prohibitions (it cannot act in ways that infringe individual rights). Its not the GOP that hasn’t figured it out, its that SCOTUS has neglected or refused to interpret entitlements correctly, to define them as the chains of slavery that they really are. Until it does, there is nothing the GOP or anyone else can do about it.

      • Pat Poe

        Social Security is not an entitlement. Look up your facts about why that program is having issues. The politicians made it so they could “borrow” without the requirement of ever paying it back. It should have a surplus. The ones who shout the loudest against it probably own some of the largest debt to the program. They do not want the public to know that they stole the retirement of those that paid in.

  • ulyssesmsu

    None of this means anything. Congress refuses to act against Obama because they are afraid it will make them unpopular. Until we remove all establishment Republicans from Congress, there is no chance of defeating Obama on any important issues.

    • Pat Poe

      You say remove all republicans, but what about the Dems who refuse to go against him are you saying keep them as well? The independent voters outnumber both “main” parties. They need to unite and throw both parties or at least the ones that act like they do not work for the people.

  • Mark Robert

    Please call your Congressman and Senators and tell them to stand with, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Justin Amash and Rand Paul, In Defunding Obamacare.

    Tell them. “We don’t want, Mass immigration, NSA spying on us, SOPA, CISPA, PIPA or any other anti-Constitutional anti-American crap shove down our throats.”

    Tell them. “WE WANT OUR CONSTITUTION tobe FULLY ENFORCED!”

    Please sign the petition: @ Don’t fund it .com
    Or call in your petition: @ 1-(800) 506-2118

    • mac

      Since when do you think they care about what we want:?

  • Liekiller

    Gee, you think MAYBE they should have read it before they passed it?

    • Bryan ĸ McDonald

      Thay had to pass it to read it!!!

    • Chad

      That’s the problem, they never read anything. Who would want to read it, it’s like 2000 pages long!!

    • Rob Dies

      They were given 4 reams of text and told they had half an hour to read it before the vote. See the problem with that?

  • Lorna Jaye Merriott

    I have emailed my congressman and senator several times to tell them of my displeasure with the obamacare pkg, among other things. I always remind them that they need to listen to us, their constituents, as they can be voted out as easily as they were voted in.

    • guessed

      After the damage is already done !

  • Concerned American

    I wish congress and members of the government would start doing some actual work for a change instead of being hung up on something that is already law and helping millions of Americans obtain affordable healthcare. Get over it and get some real work done!

    • Glen Saunders

      Give me some facts on this statement please. How is this giving millions of Americans affordable healthcare and exactly where are they located? They are certainly not located anywhere in Kansas or the surrounding states.

      • Long Colt

        Not here in NE as far as I can find out either.

    • nynature

      Affordable healthcare? Obamacare is nothing more than a subsidy for the insurance companies. By forcing everyone to purchase health insurance, the insurance companies win. The real issue here is that if this is a tax (fine), like the court has determined, then it will only apply to those who file a return.

    • mac

      Yeah, its a great law. If you know someone in the administration or you are an employee of the government you can get a waiver, and not have to be subject to the “law”

    • Liekiller

      And just how great can the program be if Congress has exempted themselves and other government employees from it?

      • Pat Poe

        Agreed all laws of the land should apply unilaterally no matter the political or economical status. They have thousand of excuses why the laws should not apply to them. They are citizens, and they work for us it should apply equally.

    • Sara K

      It’s done NOTHING to make healthcare more affordable for me. Everyone I talk to that HAS insurance says they now are required to pay more for coverage they’ll never use i.e. maternity, rehab etc.

      • Harold

        The cornerstone of Obama-care is for young employed people to buy this expensive garbage which they don’t want or need. Most young people I know (that do not have major health problems) do not worry about purchasing insurance until they marry and have a family. What their employer offers is sufficient for them. In essence we are attempting to enslave our youngest and brightest to take care of the rest.

        • Rob Dies

          In other words, powerful Boomers saw the writing on the wall and it says that we, the generations that came after them, were going to make them lie in the bed they made. So they’re trying to do something about it.

      • Pat Poe

        You are correct the Concept of affordable healthcare is a good one but this is not affordable. It also is setup to punish those who cannot afford it.

    • Chad

      You have no problems with it because you are probably sitting on your butt without a job, tons of federal benefits, and can’t wait for government insurance so you can add to your benefit package. You are an idiot.

    • Josh Corrington

      You’re only concerned about your next freebie, And to call yourself an “American” is a disgrace to anybody who’s ever taken responsibility and made a better life for themselves.

    • Pat Poe

      If the implementation of that law violates the constitution it is not a law. If the steps that is suppose to follow are not followed it is not law. Healthcare for all sure I think that could be done, but the way this was done is not correct.

  • Tom White

    I say, no harm–no foul. Spank the IRS not very hard, then go back to Congress and have them make the change. Easier said than done, right? I know. But it seems to be the only way they’re going to get the program back on track. Good luck!

    • Bryan ĸ McDonald

      So the IRS re-writing law is no harm no foul? Go home Tom, you’re drunk.

    • Elizabeth Fisher

      Get back on track? Obamacare is a train wreck that is derailing a little bit more every day. WTF planet are you from?

    • Pat Poe

      It violates the constitution the very concept and attempt is a harm and a foul. It is not the system that is failing us it is the ones who are suppose to work within the system, and represent the people that are failing us. Giving them a free pass on this is not the proper action.

    • Tom White

      Any organization who wants to stay in business isn’t going to punish their own Billing Department and Collections Agency for doing something wrong. Including the government. It’s not too hard to figure out.

  • Tom White

    I thought you were going to be a non-partisan type of guy Ben, but am not so sure now. These LPAC events on the sidebar there throws up a red flag for me. Wealth inebriated politics mixed in with some Christian Fundamentalism and greasy gun guys. Anything with ‘Liberty’ or ‘Freedom’ in the name of a group is a steer clear warning.

    • srmmedia

      Yeah you wouldn’t any thing to do with Liberty and or Freedom would you pal?

    • Bryan ĸ McDonald

      Right! Who needs pesky things like Freedom and Liberty in America ??

    • Kevin

      run tom! its clearly Far right wing here and most normal people know they are as bad as the Far left are… seems like no moderates can talk anymore….

    • Pat Poe

      “Freedom and Liberty” You mean you beleive these terms are tied to a party, and not to the core of the US? You want no “Freedom and Liberty” in your life? Those words are not a warning sign. You must pay attention to the content of the sight. I suppose you against “Truth and Justice” as well?

    • Tom White

      That’s what I thought. A bunch of flag wavers who take advantage of the system in the name of patriotism. Well, be my guest. It doesn’t make it any righter. Your, “I got mine’s, so screw you’ attitudes make me ill.

      • jackstanton

        The end of slavery (Lincoln was the first Republican) Civil rights passed by a Republican Congress. There are more but I wouldn’t want your fuzzy little head to explode.

  • Donna Cox

    Sir, in response to my post about a legal challenge to obamacare and SCOTUS. The Courts can not act as legislators. Any Court in the United States, especially the United States Supreme Court is a protection against those violating the “law”. Any law that needs to be judged must be properly challenged in a Court. The Supreme Court can not ever, not even once dictate something that has not been put in front of them on a legal challenge.
    The Constitution gives them authority of appellate Jurisdiction, both as Law and Fact.
    According to legal definitions:
    law: the legislative pronouncement of rules to guide one’s actions in society. 2. the total of those rules of conduct put in force by legislative authority or court decisions, or established by local custom.
    Appellate jurisdiction the power vested in a superior court to correct legal errors of inferior courts and to revise their judgments accordingly.
    To completely clarify these statements. A Court of law can only act on a law that has already been proven by fact. A Superior Court to one making that finding of fact can only rule on the statements made in that case, and challenged to be in error. The Courts can only rule on facts. They can not make or change law if there has never been a challenge to a law, or if there is not legal questions brought forth by a County, State or Federal appeals Court. Private entities or public entities, if they can prove legal standing can bring challenges, but no where ever can the United States Supreme Court, or any Court rule on something in a law that has not been legally challenged through the judicial system.

    • Mac

      That may well be how it is supposed to work, but in recent years many a court, both state and federal have “made law”.

    • Pat Poe

      FYI If you are on a Jury you can declare the laws used to file charges unconstitutional. Even though the courts try to make us forget that.

  • Gino Main

    Praise God.Any and every thing against this illegally elected president is good for the American people.

  • James Albers

    I think all states should opt out. Would make it impossible for the affordable care act to function.

  • pattiew

    I have heard so many different messages about how to stop Obama I have hope then it falls apart and he wins again I want to have hope I really do ,I will pray and wait as I have been doing for so long this time I hope it is the one time it works

  • KarenYMe

    I have several family members in the medical profession and they are telling me the doctors are leaving by the droves so somebody better get busy before we have no one left to care of the sick except the nurses.

  • lynnd

    Good! Let’s get this POC declared unconstitutional!

  • GeorgeWoodman

    There are a few things going on that Mr. Obama either ignores or is ignorant of. One is, and there is a pattern of this in his White House, to ignore the matters allotted to the states. This is referred to as “States Rights.” The other is, with just a few more states in agreement, under Article V of the Constitution there will be the two thirds number to call for a Constitutional Convention. When that is done more than just this affordable health care law can be taken care of.

  • buckeyelady65

    This is news you won’t hear, anywhere else! Good news, too. :) Wow, I can’t believe they thought to just change the law. LOL, this guy was a lawyer and a “teacher of the Constitution”? More like a con-artist.

    • Rob Dies

      Yeah, he only studied the Constitution to find loopholes.

  • Givemelibertyor

    Article 1 Section 7 of the united States Constitution ” All bills for raising Revenue (taxes) shall originate in the House of Representatives. The SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is indeed a tax. I had read an article some time back that this POS legislation was being challenged in the courts since it originated in the Senate. Does anyone know the status of this action?

  • peter_the_bellhop

    I thought the SCOTUS finding and remedy took away penalties to states for not setting up exchanges. They also limited fines to the low amounts already set. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2013/1/v35n4-5.pdf

  • JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

    Obamacare law is a tax per SCOTUS; the bill originated from the Senate, and NOT from the House of Reps so therefore is UNconstitutional. No ifs, ands or buts.

    • gmo2ashes

      You are correct, however, the brain dead sheeple love getting screwed, so We The People suffer.

    • staunchindependent

      Hate to quibble JJ, but a bill can originate in either the House or the Senate. If your logic was that straightforward I’m sure it would have been challenged by now. Respectfully,

      • jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

        Both branches can originate bills BUT ONLY the House of Reps can originate a bill to be a TAX per Article 1, Section 7. Also, Obamacare is indeed being brought before SCOTUS after October recess to be argued on this single clearly defined point. SCOTUS/Roberts has already proclaimed it to be a tax. The Senate wrote 100% of the bill, then sent it to the House of Reps which did NOT debate or change one word (not even to committee) but simply voted on it. Again, originated in Senate; now to be heard before SCOTUS in the fall as UNconstitutional. FWIW, Marine Vet filed lawsuit!

        • Dennis_Howard

          The House didn’t exactly vote on it. Nancy Pelosi “deemed it to pass” on some kind of a vote, but I’m not sure what it was. It’s even more squirrily than anyone thinks. The sheeple have been had thanks to Blackjack Harry Reid, no-nothing Nancy Pelosi, that dictator in the White House and our disgraceful Supreme Court. We are no longer the free country my brother and so many friends gave their lives for

      • Michael Bowler

        Umm, staunchindependent, is ignorance bliss?

  • Michael Bowler

    In the eyes of the courts, about 3/4 of congress and an entire generation, brought up to believe the Constitution is a racist document written by old white guys, the discussion over whether a law is Constitutional or not is simply unimportant. A majority in congress passed it, therefore it is the law, Constitution be damned. A few representatives said as much during their negotiations to pass it.
    The SCOTUS rewrote the law to make the individual mandate’s penalty a tax, because, as a penalty, it was unconstitutional. The very act of the SCOTUS rewriting the law was, itself, an unconstitutional act…but, nevermind, it passed muster after the fudging.
    The rule of law is only important when your side wins. The Republican leadership is perfectly happy to allow this monstrosity to go into effect, it is their intent to use the power it represents to make money and screw us…no different than the Democrats.
    Our fight, in this era, is not Republican versus Democrat, it is ruling classes and their uninformed armies of voters versus the American public who are still convinced working hard and following the rule of law are positive attributes.

    • Of, By, and For the People

      If your going to damn the constitution, which establishes our congress and gives us the right to elect the members of it, would you rather have a dictator or monarch rule; with which you would have no other rights but the ones they allow?
      Also, since the bill has been declared a tax, it can be challenged as unconstitutional, because it was originated in the Senate, and it is only the House’s authority to originate a tax bill.

      • nobodyspecial1958

        I agree, but it isn’t a tax, and it isn’t constitutional, no matter what they say. That is what I mean by bent and broken laws. There should be clear cut ways to do things, and not ping pong back and forth with senate rule changes, and special procedures. I think by no means allow them to try to change the constitution. Those weasels would decimate it. We need someone to get in that will reverse this circus, and undo all these rules, make congress live by the rules it passes, the things they do to us, should apply to them. That is the golden rule after all. We need a finding that the constitution is a literal document, and it doesn’t say anything that it doesn’t say explicitly. We need a national recall, and a national referendum amendment, and ideally, we need to go back to state legislatures appointing senators. We also need criminal penalties for abuse of office, and some mechanism to prosecute when congress won’t. There also needs to be severe penalties for deliberate misrepresentation by the media, a press malpractice for egregious violations of the right of a free press. After all, a free press is a right given to the people to guarantee accurate reporting, and is a right given to us, not the press. When they go out of their way to misrepresent, there should be severe penalties

  • nobodyspecial1958

    To whom much is given, much is required, Congress should consider their accountability before God. I would not want to have to explain to Him why I allowed the things that are happening in this country to go on unchallenged for so long. This gov is to clever by half with all the bent and broken laws they have ignored. Thank God for the few who are fighting these weasels. The Attorney Gen & congressman from Oklahoma, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and others.

    • Michael Crawford

      I don’t think most of Congress believes in your god. Hell, I don’t.

      • nobodyspecial1958

        believe whatever you please

  • Marion786

    I tell you what is going to happen if the Affordable Care Act is defunded: You are all going to have the biggest fight on your hands you HAVE EVER SEEN! Health care reform has been needed for DECADES, and the US has a flawed system of healthcare delivery. I have never seen or heard one shred of recommended health care reform from the Republican party. All I hear or read is, “Oh, God will make us pay for what’s happening in this country,” and “You just want another freebie,” People are “not willing to stand up and take care of themselves or take responsibility,” or “Obama is ruining this country,” blah,blah,blah. BTW, members of Congress are not exempt. My question is this: If you want to know about ANY issue, WHY would you deny yourselves of not being fully informed? WHY would anyone not want to think through critically, carefully, thoughtfully about matters of great import? Why do you not want to explore opposing viewpoints with consideration? Why would you not seek out data from non-partisan sources in addition to partisan sources? Why do you deny thorough information as part of your arsenal for making informed decisions?

    • BSDetector

      ” People are. “not willi.ng to stand up and take care of themselves or take responsvibility,”

      • BSDetector

        I love this one. The 10th Amendment denies the federal government the power or authority to absolve any person of responsibility for the consequences of said person’s freely made choices and actions. This means that social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, abortion, bank bailouts and obamacare are all unconstitutional…..like it or not, that’s a fact, Jack.

        • BSDetector

          and don’t quote the commerce clause because it was never intended to to infringe upon the rights of a law abiding citizen to make decisions that only affect him/her as an individual.

    • jbo5112

      US has a flawed system of healthcare delivery. …Why do you deny thorough information as part of your arsenal for making informed decisions? — Guest

      The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for “responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient.” — WSJ

      online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644230678102274.html

    • themojoman

      Don’t worry they have PLANS,,,but why tell it now,,That’s what happened in the 30s,,,The Republicans had a plan,,word got out and FDR rushed throught the World’s Greatest Pyramid Scheme SOCIAL SECURITY

  • BSDetector

    OK, LEGALLY, the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional in that its violates the number one core principle of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of taxation without representation. Because the bill was voted on and signed by the president before it was written, and declared a tax by the Supreme Court, after it was written, the legislature could not have possibly known they were voting on a tax. Technically the US citizens were not represented by the vote when the Supreme Court was the branch of government that declared it a tax.

    • Robert

      What do you expect from a Supreme Court that is mainly composed of judges appointed by President Obama himself?

      • Robert

        Let me rephrase that.

        As of December 12, 2013, the total number of Obama judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 217, including two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 41 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 172 judges to the United States district courts, and two judges to the United States Court of International Trade.
        What can we expect with so many judges appointed by Obama. They were placed into office for a reason. They will always support him in every way.

  • Bobby

    The individual mandate of Obamacare is not a tax for not having health insurance, but a tax on being property of the State, that has exemptions for having healthcare, healthcare that does not support the general welfare of the people. Health insurance does not guarantee healthy people and there are no facts to support that. But a tax on people without insurance damages the general welfare of the citizen by making them poorer and removes the rights of the citizen.

    • themojoman

      I wonder why they didn’t print this with a DARK GREEN background and VERY FAINT letters 2

    • Zander Tower

      How about penalties for not having car insurance is that “unconstitutional”?

  • BSMETERREADER

    I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE, AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN! THIS MAN IS NOT AN AMERICAN! SOMEDAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT obama IS MORE OF A LIAR AND A CRIMINAL THAN CHARLES MANSON EVER WAS! THIS MANS LATEST obamaNATION, HE HAS HAD HIS OWN LAWS WRITTEN AND BYPASSED THE CONGRESS! I AM TRULY ASHAMED OF THE AMERICANS WHO STILL SUPPORT THIS MAN!

    • themojoman

      I wonder why they didn’t print this with a DARK GREEN background and VERY FAINT letters

  • SanfordA

    We need to review, discuss, and understand the principles of our governments, both national and state. The basic governing unit is the state, while the federal government is a union, that is, a contract between the states, the basic units. This contract, our Constitution, does not give our courts the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. Only states have this right. The underlying principle is that we are a republic, ruled by elected representatives. Since justices are not elected, they logically cannot rule on the constitutionality of laws. Just because they have been doing this for centuries does not justify it.

    Most of the states do not want Obamacare, feeling that this law violates constitutional principles. Therefore, the law is unconstitutional, in spite of the court ruling that it is constitutional.

    In the interests of our prosperity and freedom, we must remember and not neglect our principles. We have the duty to challenge those who distort these principles for their personal gain.

    If ¾ of the states agree on a change to our Constitution, it becomes part of the Constitution.

    • themojoman

      I wonder why they didn’t print this with a DARK GREEN background and VERY FAINT letters.

    • Of, By, and For the People

      SECTION 1.

      The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

      SECTION 2.

      The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

      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.

      The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

      SECTION 3.

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

      The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

  • Russell

    What concerns me is what is considered law. The 2600 page HB3200 has implanted complete authority to make changes by the executive branch… With that said damages mist have occurred inder this bill in order to sjow cause and take it to court. That folks is the conundrum.

  • jenny

    I have NO DOUBT the SCOTUS will stand with 0bama as they have already been threatened into calling this crap law constitutional via calling the mandate a tax, (taxation without representation is unconstitutional), when in fact the whole of this administration and the democrat party said it was NOT A TAX! If I were a betting person, I’d go to vegas and lay down my pathetic joke of a life savings on the SCOTUS siding with 0bama and leaving this crap bill as it is and allowing 0bama and his minions in the IRS to change it at will whenever it suits them to screw you and me over at every turn.

  • Bert Trim

    Obama is not legal. Therefore, anything he does is not legal.