This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Virginia Judge Finds Obama Health Care Law Unconstitutional

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Some curious headlines flashing on Bloomberg: a Virginia judge has just found that the Obama healthcare law is unconstitutional, and that Congress has exceeded its authority with its requirement that individuals should buy insurance. Also, the judge apparently wants portions of the law overturned, specfically the "individual mandate" provision of the Obama health care law. --- known legally as Sec. 1501. Good thing Obama is a constitutional lawyer and can explain to the judge why he is so very wrong. In the meantime, expect a Supreme Court appeal, and possibly delays to the US debt hitting $1 quadrillion.

A key quote from the Judge:

"At its core this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance ...its about an individual's right to participate"

And some more from Reuters:

A judge in Virginia on Monday invalidated a key part of the landmark healthcare law that requires individuals to buy health insurance, the first major setback for President Barack Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, backed arguments by the state of Virginia that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring that individuals buy health insurance or face a fine.

The decision is the first finding against the law that was passed in March and aimed at overhauling the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system. Judges in other states have rejected other challenges to the law.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:03 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

Sweet!  That won't cause 10,000 health care stock trades to unwind...or anything.  I'm guessing it is all "priced in."

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:05 | Link to Comment More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

The dominant legal precedent appears to be:

Judges in other states have rejected other challenges to the law.

But to get a law overturned in a minor district you need an activist judge, preferably with the right kind of political backing:

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, [...]

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:08 | Link to Comment More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Side note: sorry about those nested quotes in the reply - could not get rid of them via the editor. Some sort of bug?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:11 | Link to Comment chopper read
chopper read's picture

which judges are not activist judges?  in fact, those judges who enforce the U.S. Constitution are the least activist of any. 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:02 | Link to Comment More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

Yeah, you mean like those Supreme Court judges who enforced constitutional rights and upheld Roe v. Wade?

Or those who enforced Second Amendment constitutional rights and overturned gun control laws?

Or those who decided to refuse hearing the Florida recount case in 2000 (I mean, counting all votes has no constitutional relevance, right?) and selected G.W. Bush as the next President of the US?

Which of these activist judges enforced the Constitution? All of them?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:20 | Link to Comment damage
damage's picture

Have you even read the US Constitution or the Federalist Papers?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 20:58 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Read "The Dirty Dozen, How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom", ISBN:  978-1-935308-27-0

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:57 | Link to Comment Vashta Nerada
Vashta Nerada's picture

Had to flag you for this - most fascists have much better arguments than this.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:46 | Link to Comment Lucius Corneliu...
Lucius Cornelius Sulla's picture

So what's next on the "buy or you will be fined list"?  GM products?  T-bills in IRA accounts?  California muni-bonds?  There is no precedent for this.  The scary thing is that the leftists politicians support it without even reading the bill and their constituents fall in line without questioning the implications.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:13 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

In MN you cannot operate a motor vehicle without insurance.

There are many laws that force private citizens pay private companies what essentially amounts to a tax.

In fact, it is this nesting of private enterprise into the public domain that many of the enlightened call fascism/corporatism.

I think we can all (left/right/center) agree that this is evil.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:16 | Link to Comment More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

In MN you cannot operate a motor vehicle without insurance.

I'm waiting for republican AG's to sue over the constitutionality of that as well. (I'm not holding my breath though.)

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:20 | Link to Comment fallingman
fallingman's picture

State have rights that the federal government does not.

Also ... you can chose not to drive.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:22 | Link to Comment damage
damage's picture

You forget the 14th P&I Clause.

Also usually those state laws only apply if you are driving on government roads, not for example cutting donuts in your backyard out in the country.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:21 | Link to Comment damage
damage's picture

This is true, but usually the state laws that require you have insurance only apply if you are driving on government roads, and it does not apply to say you taking your Jeep out onto your own private property without insurance.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:38 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

That is true.  I can spin donuts in my car until the cops come and take it for not being licensed (which I cannot do unless I have proof of insurance...)

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:45 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

I see our state bird has popped his head up; The common loon. 

"There are many laws that force private citizens pay private companies what essentially amounts to a tax."

How about another example as that one is tired, broken and does not hold water..  Say loon are you forced to buy insurance if you drive it around your yard like I do with a snow plow truck, nope your not.. Your analogy is now totally broken..  Send some fan mail to Gov. Dayton @ c/o George Soros fundraiser NY NY

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 17:09 | Link to Comment Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

I think you meant the smug knowitall.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 17:54 | Link to Comment Rotwang
Rotwang's picture

In Washington (the state), I have an email from the DOL (Department of Licensing) stating that insurance is not required on vehicles twenty-five (25) years or older.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:02 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Human bodies are the NOT the same thing as motor vehicles, you can always find someone with a license (and insurance) to drive you -- finding another body, not so easy!  Besides, what makes ya think such a law isn't unconstitutional either?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:14 | Link to Comment More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

The Constitution indeed gives states the freedom to opt out of such federal laws. You can lobby your local republican state's legislative body to opt out of Medicaid. That means that people will be able to pay no health care tax.

It remains to be seen whether there's any state legislature so stupid to commit sucide by electorate.

Meanwhile republican states are trying another, rather dishonest route: instead of opting out of the federal program fair and square they claim that recent enhancements to it are 'unconstitutional' and hope that the republican Supreme Court helps them out. Riiiight ...

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 17:18 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

How is this for honest, straight from the judge, here comes the judge.

“This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation” and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution."

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 19:27 | Link to Comment Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

Your main problem - as you repeatedly demonstrate - is you think that what is just and what is legal are the same thing.  By that logic, I can think of a lot of world citizens who deserve to be raped and pillaged because their laws allow it, or don't disallow it.

Your disdain with the judiciary is one-sided.  You howl when "the other side" "wins", and cry foul, but gloat when "your side" "wins".  There are no winners in this game, except the power hungry.  Among SCOTUS's more recent fails is the right of government to seize private property by public authorities to use for other private purposes, meaning their well-connected pals who want to "repurpose" someone else's private land for personal gain.  I wish I could say that is a solitary example of judicial malfeasance, but it isn't.

If the goal here is more personal freedom, then no matter which way you cut it the healthcare law is unjust.  It enslaves the individual's health freedom to the review and mercy of bureaucrats - most of them unelected.  Governments cannot show mercy - it's a purely human trait.

However, if the goal is less personal freedom, then we're on the right track.  Who cares what the founders would think - I can speak for myself - I want more personal freedom, not less.  And before this law, I DID have more personal freedom.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:06 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

It's worse than most think it is!  Read "The Dirty Dozen, How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom", ISBN:  978-1-935308-27-0

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 22:23 | Link to Comment boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture

Amen bro, Well said

Individual Freedom is a problem to Tyrants

Isn't a forced buy in whether you want to or not , a tax.

But without Government doctors a tax will not get you health care

Soooo government doctors are next 

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 19:05 | Link to Comment Edmon Plume
Edmon Plume's picture

He overturned the individual mandate, not the law.  I guess Bush did something right after all.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 20:39 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Activist judges?

You mean like in the Ninth Circuit?

Everyone, who has a modicum of sense, has said the state can't tax you for not buying a product, no more than they can fine you for not taking any voluntary action.

Which is essentially what your former law school professor signed into law.

"STEPHANOPOULOS:  That may be, but it's still a tax increase.

OBAMA:  No.  That's not true, George.  The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.  What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...

OBAMA:  No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase.  Any...

STEPHANOPOULOS:  Here’s the...

OBAMA:  What -- what -- if I -- if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then...

STEPHANOPOULOS:  I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

OBAMA:  George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.  I mean what..."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax.html

The federal government is arguing that it is a tax now...just exactly what Barry argued with George that it wasn't...because you can't call it a fine...no one did anything to be fined for...strictly speaking...they did nothing.

So, he's either stupid or a liar...take your pick.

Earth to Barry & CT...the government is not forcing anyone to buy & drive a car (at least not yet...there is the Government Motors card still to be played...LOL)...so the argument comparing health insurance with licensing and insuring a car driver is specious at best.

Really, it's just ridiculous.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:33 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Or, I get a refund on the $2,500.00 increase for 2011 caused by it.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:03 | Link to Comment doomandbloom
doomandbloom's picture

say what?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:04 | Link to Comment thegreekT
thegreekT's picture

USD positive surely?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:13 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

Healthcare is not a right.

Shelter is not a right.

Food is not a right.

No "thing" is a right.

All entitlements are bribes, not rights.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:13 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Soooo....since the bill of rights is gone...there are no rights?

Except for you of course.

 

What are rights in your inestimable opinion?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:57 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:57 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
Mon, 12/13/2010 - 19:37 | Link to Comment caconhma
caconhma's picture

WOW. We have almost 545 clowns in the Congress. What a fking circus.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:23 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

I didn't junk you by the way. Not sure why you were junked.

Well all of those have been pretty much curtailed wouldn't you agree?

I'm just saying why complain about rights granted when critical ones are stripped away?

Besides you know it's not a right to healthcare, it's a right to be taxed for living. Health care doesn't enter into the equation unless you mean profits for the "healthcare" industry.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:55 | Link to Comment Bolweevil
Bolweevil's picture

Apparently it's a right to be taxed for dying also. Sweet.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Philidor
Philidor's picture

Consider this syllogism:  A. Receiving healthcare is a right.  B. Healthcare is principally a service.  Therefore: C: Healthcare suppliers must be obligated to supply healthcare services.  Oops, I thought the 13th amendment outlawed involuntary servitude.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:16 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Life, liberty, property.

EOM

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:57 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Why is it all you so-called Constitutional experts with the ultra-simple answers to everything can't get even the MOST FUCKING ELEMENTARY SHIT CORRECT?

That's the Declaration of Independence, you dumbfuck, and it has no technical meaning whatsoever as far as "rights" of the citizen or the laws of the land.

Jeebus it just makes me sick to see people act like they know something about our founding history and make such incredibly stupid mistakes.  Clean up your act or STFU.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:02 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

well, that is not technically correct.  both the DOI and the Preamble are referred to in Constitutional cases.  They have some weight but far less than the Document itself, more as a contextual framing thereof.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:10 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Even "The Federalist Papers" are taken into consideration in some Supreme Court cases, because they reveal the Framer's intentions.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:12 | Link to Comment Irwin Fletcher
Irwin Fletcher's picture

Actually no - it's John Locke. In the Declaration of Independence, it's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Evidently Jefferson and Franklin wanted to reserve the right to tax property.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:38 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

No, actually that's incorrect, PURSUIT of HAPPINESS, was originally PROPERTY.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 19:27 | Link to Comment Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

I recall that "property" was removed because it might weaken the case against slavery in future arguments.  

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:16 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

That's the Declaration of Independence, you dumbfuck, and it has no technical meaning whatsoever as far as "rights" of the citizen or the laws of the land.

I replied to the question, "What are rights in your inestimable opinion?" I enumerated man's rights under natural law.

Perhaps you should try flailing about and shouting at yourself for a change as it is apparent that if anyone here is a "dumbfuck," it's you.

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:01 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Who's natural law? It's just an opinion. If food, water and shelter (required for life) aren't rights then that sort of gets rid of the right to life part of life liberty and happiness. Again, those three were just someone's opinion. Even if that someone was a brilliant person for their era it's not like he discovered some as yet undefined law of physics.

If anything the only one of those three that is natural law is the right to life. Since many in this thread don't think a person has a right to food, water or shelter even that right is suspect. Life, Liberty and Happiness have been curtailed since the dawn of time and this country has been no exception. Also remember those rights were not granted to American Indians or slaves so they weren't REALLY natural rights were they?

We need to illuminate a new set of rights for people and decide what they should be as a civil society living in the realities of the 21st century instead of leaning on the ruminations of Enlightenment era philosophers. I actually agree with many of their ideas if not most of them, but people seem to want to freeze their philosophy in time as unchangable.  Trying to enshrine the rights as the will of god, or natural law or a law of physics is just a rhetorical trick to prevent debate. Also it didn't work as I don't see any of those three rights in effect currently, do you? No, we need to have open civil debate about what our rights should be NOW in the 21st century in the info age in a time of global interconnectedness. We can't rest on the laurels of even the most brilliant luminaries of the 1700's. 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:00 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Who's natural law? It's just an opinion. If food, water and shelter (required for life) aren't rights then that sort of gets rid of the right to life part of life liberty and happiness.

Natural law is not an opinion, it's objective reality. The right to live, work and keep the proceeds of one's labor are obvious and natural. If I grow an apple it is mine. If someone gives me an apple it is mine. If someone else wants my apple it is not his right to take it.

No real right requires someone else to give you something which they own. If such rights existed then your right to your own body and property would become null and void for the man who you claim has a right to your food could legitimately demand that you get of your ass and grow apples for him all day long. That is the right which you suggest is his.

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 20:56 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

A million parasites easily balanced against a single DeTocqueville...well stated sir.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:03 | Link to Comment cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

Unless said apple tree was on a BOA owned lot//////////////then N/A

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:19 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Thanks, guys, it's true.  I flew off the handle there.  BIG-TIME pet peeve.

Folks who haven't read a book without pictures for their entire lives are the first and loudest to shout about "Constitutionality" and why their specific gripe is abuse of the powers of government, but none of them can put the discussion into any kind of framework.

I'm going to go do some deep-breathing now.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:23 | Link to Comment mojine
mojine's picture

The constitution is not the source of our rights. Our humanity is. The constitution is an attempt to guarantee that government will not violate those rights. The Bill Of Rights itemizes them specifically.

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:55 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I posted more specifically a bit later.  The Bill of Rights doesn't itemize "our rights"--it specifically precludes any US legislative body from infringing on a few specific behaviors.  Not that it matters--the Bill of Rights isn't respected any more than the first six articles are.

There are no "rights" other than as a hippy-dippy pipe dream.  They're a nice fiction we tell ourselves.  May as well be arguing about angels and demons. 

There is only power.  The government has the power to violate its own foundational principles, and it does so. 

Repeatedly.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 19:30 | Link to Comment Treeplanter
Treeplanter's picture

Well said.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:27 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Apparently you need to read the following:

The Bill of No Rights -- Courtesy of Lewis W. Napper

We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

 

ARTICLE I

You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.

ARTICLE VII

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII

You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

 

Despite Progressive/Socialist kindergarten notions of "Fairness", life remains unfair!  Deal with it.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 22:04 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

If that reply is intended to be directed at me, you're really not a very good reader.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:18 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

You have a right to life, liberty, pursuit of property (original).

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Guys I know that. Come on. I'm saying I'm thrilled to see any "right" granted that isn't in reality a right to further tyranny. Since this bill as written is just more tyranny its not a right I like. However, limiting rights to the ones you listed probably isn't sufficient anymore. We need to expand upon those without adding entitlements and without encroaching police state BS. That was my point.

Also, if something happens to you and the government steals your money or what have you other shennanigans you might think the lack of a right to food, water and shelter is a tad harsh. How about a right to find work if you want to so you can feed your family? Seems like the only rights we have anymore are to have our wealth stolen and be prevented from working by "free market" globalist forces.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:18 | Link to Comment chopper read
chopper read's picture

not withstanding our incredibly corrupt monetary and banking system, who is preventing you from working?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Blindweb
Blindweb's picture

As far as I know if the Constitution is interpretted the way it was meant to be interpreted the Bill of Rights is redundant.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:18 | Link to Comment technovelist
technovelist's picture

You are right in principle, as the Constitution was meant to be a grant of specific powers to the federal government, with all other powers and right reserved to the people or the states.

You are wrong in practice, as without the Bill of Rights we would have been completely overrun by the federal government's encroachments... instead of almost completely.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:26 | Link to Comment ronin12
ronin12's picture

Right - in essence it is redundant but in PRACTICE it is far from redundant.

Think of how much easier it would be for the gubbermint to circumvent these rights had that not specifically been spelled out.

As it is, they've done a hell of a job at chipping away at them.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:43 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

The Executive Branch has been given FAR too much leeway.

Eo's, PDD's, the power now usurped by this Branch is an atrocity, and the Congress are fools.

They, in the spirit of passing the buck, have basically eliminated their Branches power.

The Exec branch, is essentially in control of ALL 3.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:36 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Rights? You have the right to try and to survive, for as long as you can. That's about it.

The idea of rights, especially when coupled with the term inalienable are an oxymoronic concept, where something that supposedly can't be taken away, comes to the forefront precisely because it has been, or is about to be taken away.

To get rid of this incoherency one must note that rights are a human, social construct, and that like all others, their voluntary adoption by the individual creates benefits to both the individual, and to others in the society. Institutionalized rights, on the other hand, are a recognition of this natural social construct, and attempt to enshrine it with legal protection.

Problem is, legal protection (and its backing political machine) is a force itself, that can, and will be used to undermine the very right is was supposed to protect.

Many areas of life contain this example of forceful vs. voluntary cooperation. People would be far better served if they understood the advantages that one has over the other.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:08 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Great post and good answer. +1

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:24 | Link to Comment Upswaller
Upswaller's picture

Is it just me, or does anyone else notice the massive increase of ridiculous "junks" awarded to rational, logical, and well-stated arguments?  Tyler?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:04 | Link to Comment pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

you have a right to junk who you want to junk.

Just being a smart ass sorry I didn't junk you by the way.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:32 | Link to Comment Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

The bill of rights lists the rights.  Everything else is just looting.....er I mean entitlements.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:16 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

Well... let's just say that they are rights at some very, very basic level.

The problem is that people on food assistance are handed a credit card to buy fish, steak, Coca Cola, and expensive cereals instead of a 50 lb. bag of rice.

Living off the goodwill of others should be an extremely unpleasant experience.

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:19 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Well... let's just say that they are rights at some very, very basic level.

But they are not. No one has a right to something which must be provided by another.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:24 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

Right...most all of what people consider 'rights' today are things that others take from someone else and give to them. 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:18 | Link to Comment Vergeltung
Vergeltung's picture

well said horseman. not sure how you could get "junked" by stating facts....

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:31 | Link to Comment damnitalready
damnitalready's picture

He was junked by someone who doesn't want their "rights" taken away...

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

+1,000,000,000,000

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 18:57 | Link to Comment SRV - ES339
SRV - ES339's picture

Healthcare is not a right.

Only in America could this view actually be taken seriously... nice to know the billions spent by the Health-care (corporate) Lobby didn't go to waste.

Actually this will not go anywhere... letting the poor opt out would reduce the health insuror's customer base and reduce profit (and the world as we know it will surely come to an end). Don't worry, they'll give you plenty of justification for changing your position, and you can be sure massaging the constitution to defend their position will be front and center.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:38 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Apparently you need to read the following:

The Bill of No Rights -- Courtesy of Lewis W. Napper

We, the sensible of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden delusional, and other liberal, commie, pinko bed-wetters.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

 

ARTICLE I

You do not have the right to a new car, big-screen color TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all of your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and kill you.

ARTICLE VII

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII

You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX

You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities in education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those around you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

 

Remember, rulers have no right to do anything that you have no right to do on
your own.  If you shouldn't do it, you shouldn't ask others to do it for you.

Despite Progressive/Socialist kindergarten notions of "Fairness", life remains unfair!  Deal with it.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:05 | Link to Comment Clint Liquor
Clint Liquor's picture

Pharma will be phucked if this stands.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:12 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

And I'll be fucked either way.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:14 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Yay?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:03 | Link to Comment Bolweevil
Bolweevil's picture

Here's to hoping!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:05 | Link to Comment Popo
Popo's picture

Of course it's unconstitutional.   I'm a proponent of public healthcare -- but the way this was rammed through, while preserving the existing insurance industry (and increasing their profits) -- and requiring citizens to buy insurance, is completely obscene.

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:10 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

And of course the EXEMPTIONS granted to over 200 unions, companies, and groups...only the small are forced into this unaffordable tyranny.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:06 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"And of course the EXEMPTIONS granted to over 200 unions, companies, and groups...only the small are forced into this unaffordable tyranny."

Two Hundred and Twenty Two now...and counting.

What's the old phrase?...it is good to be king?

We fought many wars against king's, dictators and empire's over shit just like this...it's as good as place as any to plant my flag.

The state has no right to my body or my soul.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:12 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+++

My wife and I are considering ´running naked´(no insurance), and if this decision stands, we won´t have to pay the stupid fine.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Deflationburger...
Deflationburger with Fleas's picture

If you do this, may I urge you to both go get a body scan and full checkup before you drop it.

2 years ago I turned up with cancer.  Between radiation and surgeries, my medical costs totaled near $150 large. 

 

And oh yeah, I was 29 years old at the time.  Shit just happens sometimes, so at least make sure you dont currently have anything pressing before you make the decision.  Our healthcare sucks, but so does bankruptcy.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 19:05 | Link to Comment SRV - ES339
SRV - ES339's picture

So sad, on so many levels... I can only wish you and your family the very best sir.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:44 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Catestrophic Health Insurance would have been adequate to cover your finances.

Currently, health insurance in the USA has morphed into "gee, I really don't want to pay for ANYTHING health-related, please pay for it for me" insurance!

I don't see anyone (yet) demanding that Auto Insurance cover oil-changes, tire rotations, etc., so WHY is health insurance "supposed" to cover the equivalent of routine maintenance??

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:15 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

+1,000,000 exactly right!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:30 | Link to Comment IQ 145
IQ 145's picture

 Every state with "no fault"; or other named "you buy it or else" car insurance has exactly the same problem; it's a completely un-constitutional program. No state has the police power granted to it to order a citizen to take money out of their wallet and pay a private company. But notice; everyone is compliant; no one thinks, no one acts. Bully for the judge. He's doing what he's supposed to be doing.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:58 | Link to Comment chunkylover42
chunkylover42's picture

The auto insurance example is not relevant to health care.  I have less problem with requiring auto insurance, since you can always elect not to drive.  Grab a bus, a bike, or a ride from a friend if you don't want to play by those rules.  I'm not as certain that it's unconstitutional.

Mandating the purchase of health insurance is unconsitutional, and I suspect this is the beginning of a long fight (that Obama will eventually lose).

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:01 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

"Mandating the purchase of health insurance is unconsitutional"

This is (to me) not the point of the Bill.

The point is to drive everyone else out of the business, and IF you want any coverage you will HAVE to take the Fed Option.

IF you want coverage of any kind.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:59 | Link to Comment TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

Driving on the roads is not a right.  Don't want to get a license and buy auto insurance, fine. Just don't drive on public roads. You in no way forfeit your right to opt out.

With healthcare, you must buy in. There is no ability to opt out such as that which exists with auto insurance.

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 16:19 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Driving on the roads is not a right.

The state has no right to maintain a monopoly on roadways.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:06 | Link to Comment Larry Darrell
Larry Darrell's picture

Wow!!!  There is hope?  Not every last judge on a bench has been bought off yet?

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:11 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

Someone in gov't did the right thing!  I don't know how to feel, this sensation is alien to me.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:24 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

It's just gas.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:07 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

How long will that judge live?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:25 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

I hope he's never been to Sweden.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:36 | Link to Comment Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

LOL!!!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:08 | Link to Comment Bill Lumbergh
Bill Lumbergh's picture

Interesting...wonder how the other "56" states will rule.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:10 | Link to Comment Cdad
Cdad's picture

+1 LOL!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:40 | Link to Comment Mark Medinnus
Mark Medinnus's picture

+2 LOL!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:27 | Link to Comment mojine
mojine's picture

+3 LOL!!!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:10 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

+ 4 LOL!!!!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:09 | Link to Comment flacon
flacon's picture

I just wish the powers would stop TINKERING with everything. 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 15:04 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

 Stop Tinkering????.

I have a better description ClusterF*%*

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:09 | Link to Comment goldmiddelfinger
goldmiddelfinger's picture

Is it me or does David Axelrod look like Hitler? And what is the derivation of the name "Axelrod"?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:11 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

He's really a constitutional lawyer? 
Seriously.  
Are you yuckin' me, yankin' my chain?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:47 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Well, "theoretically" he is!  And "theoretically", submarines can swim!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:11 | Link to Comment Horatio Beanblower
Horatio Beanblower's picture

It was good while it lasted...

 


A federal judge in Lynchburg, Va., has dismissed a lawsuit that Liberty University filed against the government's health reform mandate, ruling that Congress operated under its proper authority.

The complaint, filed this year, argued that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional and would force the funding of abortions.

U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon disagreed, saying that Congress acted in accordance with its delegated powers under the Commerce Clause when it approved coverage provisions of the act. The Commerce Clause refers to the constitutional article giving Congress power to regulate commerce among the states.

 

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/12/13/gvbf1213.htm

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment Nepenthe
Nepenthe's picture

Wrong case...

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Horatio Beanblower
Horatio Beanblower's picture

Thanks.  <embarrased>

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:12 | Link to Comment Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

What the heck is the Constitution?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:14 | Link to Comment jimgcpa
jimgcpa's picture

Constitution is just a piece of paper.  Buy the dips Bitches.

 

 

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:41 | Link to Comment Mark Medinnus
Mark Medinnus's picture

+1 LOL!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:15 | Link to Comment FunkyMonkeyBoy
FunkyMonkeyBoy's picture

It's that the thing that the people have apathetically let their government shat all over.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:15 | Link to Comment Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

Toilette paper for incorporation, why do you ask?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:28 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Constitution? We don' need no steenkin' Constitution.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

(moved)

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:32 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Yeah, that's the ticket!
Constitution, like in how good your stools move.

You're spot on... moved.
As in I had a good constitution whilst listening to the debate on C-SPAN.

Many thanks.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:14 | Link to Comment TexDenim
TexDenim's picture

Fantastic! The Great Unwinding of ObamaRama Daily Drama begins!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Except all the bits the Oligarchy likes. You know just like Obama was going to roll back Bush era stuff...cept the bits the Oligarchy liked.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:24 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

Enough with your D vs. R posts, everyone hates the patriot act as well.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:28 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Enough saying D vs. R is a sham? That's certainly my belief. I don't like this god awful healthcare bill anymore than I liked the Patriot act.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:33 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

<sarcasm>Anybody who doesn't want to be a healthy patriot is a sick terrorist.</sarcasm>

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:34 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

It's scary because it seems like a plausible tagline at this point. Patriots take their shots, patriots eat their GMO food etc.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:43 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:40 | Link to Comment curbyourrisk
curbyourrisk's picture

The Patriot Act was written by a desparate Government.  It had nothing to do with D vs. R.  All the elected officials were equally responsible for that embarassment.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Yet neither party has made any serious effort to repeal or amend it to be in accordance with the constitution and bill of rights. Why do you think that is?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 21:50 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:16 | Link to Comment Vergeltung
Vergeltung's picture

that is certainly some great news!!!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment notadouche
notadouche's picture

Unbelievable use of common sense used by someone in government.  Anyone check the temperature in Hell?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:27 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Partly sinny, with a chance of golden showers.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment moofph
moofph's picture

...constitution?...lol...i remember when it had meaning...now, it's just used to line the cages of the parrots in washington d.c....target practice boards for the armed forces...dart board for the state governments...litter for city ordinances...and a nuisance for the citizens...don't get me wrong...for i dream of the day when it will once again be a living breathing document worth dying for...and that day seems further away with each letter i type.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:21 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

The constitution has as much weight as the people it is written for are willing to enforce against those who seek to overturn it and enforce tyranny. From what I see among financial gurus and such, they like being slaves, long as their stock goes up a bit.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:49 | Link to Comment moofph
moofph's picture

...it seems that the individuals earning a living free from the corrupt sysytem now in place are the real financial gurus.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Is Being Alive Engaging in an Activity of Commerce?
The government can force you to buy auto insurance because you are engaging in an activity... Congress can regulate commerce so they can regulate your activity...

Being (alive) is not engaging in an activity... Therefore you can not regulate me and force me to buy insurance simply because I am standing here...

Back to Law School Marionette de la Rue Mur
A corporate fascist and Wall Street puppet like Obummer simply doesn't understand these things...

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:19 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Wait until they cap and trade your breathing...

What you say makes sense of course, in a country with rule of law. In the US, not so much. I think referring to a "fictional work" by Lewis Carrol or Aldous Huxley or Orwell might be more instructive into what to expect rather than mamby pamby rule of law, constitution and you know common freaking sense!

/bitter sarcasm off...until the next post

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:23 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

If the people allow it, sure the tyrants will turn everyone into landless peasants...thats what they do.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:27 | Link to Comment FunkyMonkeyBoy
FunkyMonkeyBoy's picture

They are already taking breathing with this CO2 climate-change lies and nonsense.

They didn't go for the direct inhaling (oxygen) tax, as they would be too obvious and receive opposition.

So they went for the exhaling (CO2) tax instead.

Now you just need to find a way of inhaling without exhaling.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:43 | Link to Comment apberusdisvet
apberusdisvet's picture

Is that the rationale for blowing smoke up someone's ass?  Same thing as a daisy chain at a gay nudist colony?

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:45 | Link to Comment I Am The Unknow...
I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

...welll I guess we'll have to hold our breath for an answer to that one...

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:29 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

"Wait until they cap and trade your breathing..."

Then I will just have to stop buying all corporate products, buy silver, reload my own and barter...

My winter garden crops are doing quite well this year... Want a mandarin?

Vote With Your Dollars People
If you don't like the way government acts... slap their owners... corporations...

Don't like TSA sexual assault... tell the airlines you won't fly until they kick TSA out of airports... etc. The power of economic boycott is in our hands...

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

Completely agree here. Working on all the things you've suggested. Glad to hear others are similarly voting with their dollars and their time. Cheers!

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:56 | Link to Comment ManitouMike
ManitouMike's picture

That might work for people who fly for pleasure, but not so well for business travelers. Boycotts only work well when the downside to the boycott is fairly limited. Philosophically, if the penalties of the "wrong answer" are severe enough, is there really a choice? In my mind, the right to choose goes hand in hand with the viability of ALL the alternatives.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

I absolutely agree that it becomes a choice that involves sacrifice. Alas, few are the people who are willing to make that sacrifice. It's all up to the individual to decide what they will tolerate or not.

That said, all great movements towards increased liberty have required tremendous personal and societal sacrifice. 1776 to use a violent rebellion example and the Indian protest of making their own salt to give a peaceful example. In both cases, the people who craved more liberty had to make sacrifices often their very lives.

When people won't sacrifice their jobs to protest TSA, or even a few minutes to request a pat down (assault) instead of being irradiated we probably aren't anywhere near the tipping point of personal sacrifice.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:25 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The Commerce Clause exists solely to prevent individual states from creating impediments to interstate commerce. It is not a blueprint for a Federal takeover of the US economy.

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:31 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

correct

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:31 | Link to Comment Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

+111111

Mon, 12/13/2010 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Bring the Gold
Bring the Gold's picture

That was surely the original intent. Definitely not the interpretation in the past 30 or so years. Many, many things have been trampled on due to insane interpretations of that clause.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!