Subscriber Login



Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
ObamaCare is constitutional PDF Print E-mail

Letter to the Editor:

Last week in this column, reference was made to Mr. Michael Connelly, “a retired attorney and constitutional lawyer,” and his opinion that parts of the Affordable Health Care Choices Act were unconstitutional.

Mr. Connelly certainly has a right to his own opinion, but nine justices with a mandate to determine constitutionality of this act have already ruled in its favor. The supremes (the justices, not the singing group) not only had an opinion, but it is now the authoritative opinion on this matter.

This is not to say that the Supreme Court always gets it right, witness Dred Scott v. Sanford (Fugitive Slave Act), Korematsu vs. U.S. (Japanese internment), Plessy v. Ferguson (apartheid), Bush v. Gore (political appointment to the highest office by the judiciary) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (corporate personhood and votes for sale to the highest bidder).

Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, until such time that it might be reversed by a subsequent court, by definition, it is constitutional.

Not only is ObamaCare constitutional, but, one, it was passed by Congress and the time for negotiation was during that legislative process; two, it has survived 42 attempts by the House to repeal it; and three, the 2012 presidential election served as a referendum confirming it. Let’s move on.

Terrence Moe

Three?Lakes

Tuesday, October 15, 2013 2:47 PM
 

Comments  

 
-10 #5 2013-10-16 19:23
Terrence:

We can debate the constitutional issue 'till the cows come home'! The fact is "Obamacare" is the law. A very bad law, but it is the law. If the law actually did what the President and his followers hoped it would there would not have been the need for all of the exemptions that have already been announced. I'm afraid we have forgotten about all of those major companies that supported Obama that were given exemptions a year ago. Now hundreds of companies have been given one or two year delays. Late last week the unions were given a year's delay, and as we all know the President and members of the Congress are now exempt. If it was a good law, none of this would be happening! The sad reality is that the people he intended to help the most will be hurt the most, while thousands of others will be paying more for less! This should come as no surprise as the Speaker of the House said, "We have to pass the bill to see what is in it! Seriously?!?
Quote
 
 
-15 #4 Frank Gabl 2013-10-16 11:02
Terrance,

I won’t comment on ObamaCare because you know as well as anyone who has been paying attention from the beginning of the debate in 2009, that the anti-American scheme is a bait and switch to be kind, and fraud to be accurate.

That said, each and every one of your examples in which the Supreme Court got it wrong are utterly trivial when compared to what normal Americans would consider should have topped any medical doctor’s list regardless of their political convictions.

And with 56.5 million exterminations (1.2 million on average per year including 16,500 late-terms of “viable” persons) since 1973, Roe v. Wade, “which permits murder based on the age of the victim,” has no equal.

I trust it was merely an honest omission on your part.

Abort ObamaCare.
Quote
 
 
+1 #3 2013-10-15 19:37
Not all nine agreed... Four dissented.

And the Bush appointment is the one who swung the vote. But it is still Bush's fault.

Denny, we agree AGAIN!!!
Quote
 
 
-1 #2 Jeff Laadt 2013-10-15 18:32
Dr. Moe is referring to last week's letter by Gene Klumpp citing Mr. Connelly's opinion on the Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009 (HR 3200.)

In a comment to Klumpp's letter I pointed out that the above-mentioned legislation never passed Congress, is not law, and has never been subjected to judicial review. I suggested that perhaps Klumpp simply confused HR 3200 with the current law known as "Obamacare." Unfortunately, that seems to be what is happening here.

I don't intend to comment on the merits of the ACA, at least not here. But it would be nice to simply get the facts straight: there is no such law as the Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. Discussion of this "Act" may be of interest to historians, but bears no relevance to the present controversies over health care reform.

Jeff Laadt
Quote
 
 
-10 #1 Denny Erardi 2013-10-15 14:57
I agree with you regarding constitutionali ty and having already had numerous bites at the apple, however, I disagree with the sentiment of just moving on.
The President made innumerable comments during his campaigning for this act alleging that nothing will change for the worse, that if you like what you have, you can keep it and so forth.
Missing in all that rhetoric from the President was a follow up phrase that keeping what you have will likely cost you more. That's unassailable now -- many people who have regularly been paying for their health insurance are finding their premiums increasing exponentially along with their deductibles.
So, while it's arguably peachy that some folks who previously couldn't, or wouldn't, afford healthcare now have it, it's been obtained by virtue of penalizing people who have been taking care of themselves all along.
What the President and his supporters did was wrong, dishonest and misleading.
Quote
 

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.


Security code
Refresh