Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think its funny that so many lawsuits and multiple different findings and liberals love this law that increase everyone's healthcare costs.... You really have to love liberalism to love something that has caused a lot of problems...
Or they will side with the courts that have ruled it constitutional.
Using the argument that its a tax, which wasnt argued as a reason its unconstitional. Thats the next lawsuit making its way through the court...
We all know tax increases MUST pass in the House first.. and just like you've argued that the Senate couldnt pass a spending bill prior to the House (during the government shut down, and they proved you wrong), they will most likely rule the Constitution needs to be upheld and rule the whole dam thing illegal. Then will your precious Obamacare be, especially given millions are losing insurance as we speak..
its a $1000 a day FINE for non compliance for businesses.
And what does that have to do with the OP's statement that liberals claimed if the Individual Mandate portion of Obamacare were deemed constitutional that it therefore meant every other portion of Obamacare was also constitutional?
And what does that have to do with the OP's statement that liberals claimed if the Individual Mandate portion of Obamacare were deemed constitutional that it therefore meant every other portion of Obamacare was also constitutional?
Sure looks like thats exactly what people have said..
Or they will side with the courts that have ruled it constitutional.
Or they will side with the courts that have ruled it constitutional.
Why would they? What possible interest has the state in forcing someone to provide something against their religion? Remember, the "congress shall make no regarding the establishment of religion" rule applies both ways. The government cannot decide what IS a legitimate religious belief and what is not - it is prohibited from doing so.
Sure looks like thats exactly what people have said..
Where? Provide one link in which a liberal has said that the Individual Mandate being ruled constitutional means the other 3000 provisions (or however many there are) of Obamacare are therefore also constitutional.
Quote:
Or they will side with the courts that have ruled it constitutional.
Haha - you think this proves your point?
Right now, 2 circuits have held that the Birth Control Provision is constitutional and 2 circuits have held that the Birth Control Provision is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will have to chose one side or the other - that's all that quote says.
And if you think about it, the quote you provided proves my point. If a liberal said "The Court ruled the Individual Mandate constitutional, and therefore all of Obamacare is constitutional" how could the liberal then say "but the Court still has to determine whether the Birth Control Provision is constitutional or not, and it could go with either side in the circuit split."
If a liberal said what you and the OP claims us liberals were saying, then our response to these court cases about the Birth Control Provision would be something like "These appeals courts have no business hearing these cases - when the US Supreme Court ruled the Individual Mandate constitutional, it ruled all of Obamacare constitutional, including the Birth Control Provision."
The government cannot decide what IS a legitimate religious belief and what is not - it is prohibited from doing so.
The government also cannot decide what is a legitimate health insurance policy and what is not... though it seems just fine with doing exactly that, making laws saying policies that don't have certain features (maternity care for old men etc.) are now illegal, while ones that do have it, are legal under Obamacare.
That hasn't stopped the liberals yet. What makes you think a mere matter of religion will?
Where? Provide one link in which a liberal has said that the Individual Mandate being ruled constitutional means the other 3000 provisions (or however many there are) of Obamacare are therefore also constitutional.
Haha - you think this proves your point?
Right now, 2 circuits have held that the Birth Control Provision is constitutional and 2 circuits have held that the Birth Control Provision is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will have to chose one side or the other - that's all that quote says.
And if you think about it, the quote you provided proves my point. If a liberal said "The Court ruled the Individual Mandate constitutional, and therefore all of Obamacare is constitutional" how could the liberal then say "but the Court still has to determine whether the Birth Control Provision is constitutional or not, and it could go with either side in the circuit split."
If a liberal said what you and the OP claims us liberals were saying, then our response to these court cases about the Birth Control Provision would be something like "These appeals courts have no business hearing these cases - when the US Supreme Court ruled the Individual Mandate constitutional, it ruled all of Obamacare constitutional, including the Birth Control Provision."
Notice how we're not saying that.
So you'll only listen to a "link" as validation and not read what the hell THEY WROTE? You havent proved a point other than in your own lala brain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
