(CNN) - A federal court in Richmond, Virginia, is scheduled to conduct the nation's first appellate review of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul Tuesday, giving the controversial legislation a major legal test.
Federal judges across the country have been divided over the constitutionality of the law's "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties.
OK, let's get this slow motion train wreck into the Supreme Court ASAP. We need to know if we live a democratic Republic any longer or if the federal government now controls every aspect of our lives.
The liberal justices on the Supreme Court have already demolished private property rights when they ruled cities could take private property from citizens to give to private developers for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues.
We must now learn whether individuals can be forced to buy a product from a private company by the federal government. If that is upheld, then there is no freedom from a federal government and its nanny dictates.
If this country continues down this disastrous leftist path, our financial woes will be the least of our problems. We'll be slaves of the government.
So I take it you want to continue to have your tax dollars pay for medical care for the uninsured? That sounds a lot like welfare to me.
Ah, how cute...yet another talking point word salad from "The Day Of." Amusing, but really...you need to get a clue. Read the Raich line of cases and inform yourself on the precedent giving expansive power to the federal government via the Commerce Clause. You guys love to pretend that the health care insurance mandate is some whacky crazy never-been-done omg-it's-so-extreme radical measure. It's not, and most objective observers agree that it's very likely to pass the test under the Commerce Clause and would require some pretty fancy footwork and a concerted effort on the part of the SCOTUS to find it unconstitutional. Even the decisions that have found it unconstitutional so far have been replete with problems including blatantly tautological "reasoning," overreaching by not properly deferring to the legislature with respect to factual determinations or even failing to follow judicial norms such as reading provisions to be severable.
Freedom and security are conflicting ideas. More of one always means less of the other. We watched as Bush traded our civil liberties for security from terrorism. Now we are expected to watch as Obama trades our economic freedom for social security. We have a choice to make, more freedom or more security. Should we allow the Government to grow unchecked, or force it back into it's intended role. It is our duty to weigh the need for security against the desire for freedom. It is our governments duty to balance the two according to our wishes. A government that serves any other purpose is tyranny.
Nation needs this health care reform....court has nothing to do with it...o.k....it is passed by congress and senate, and appended president signature, turned into law....o.k, Glad, Health Care Reform is passed...it is for the good of the public...just know...writer is a law grad, has masters in law...o.k,
Yeah...what HE said. ^^^^