In a victory for the Obama administration, a federal judge tonight has upheld the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law.

U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, of the District of Columbia, wrote that Congress “was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power” when it mandated that individuals buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

[...]

“There is nothing extraordinary about Congress’ use of its Commerce Clause power,” she wrote, “to rein in the price of health insurance policies.”

She rejected any claim that an individual’s choice not to enter the health insurance market place was akin to “inactivity.” The law’s critics claim that while Congress can regulate economic activity, it cannot regulate “inactitvity,” such as an individual’s choice not to buy health insurance.

[...]

“Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not to do something,” she wrote. “There are two sides to the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/third-federal-judge-upholds-health-care-law-score-now-3-2/

“To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.”

But but but….. ignoring reality is YOUR EXPERTISE ReptilianLoser!

and let’s not be UNrealistic

the NRA is the one calling the shots here (pun intended)

what the NRA wants it will get – period

the NRA is currently taking a position to protect the ownership of a shoulder held gun that is capable of taking down an airplane

the NRA has already made it illegal for a doctor / guardian / caregiver / service provider to ASK a child about the presence of a gun in the home when assessing the safety of the child in that household

the NRA rules

frankD

.

@Frank: Congress approved of Iraq.

BUT was it UNconstitutional to kill saddam hussein simply because he was a “threat” ?

congress has approved a lot of legislation that subsequently were declared UNconstitutional – no ?

likewise the seminoles NEVER signed a peace treaty with the US – if we killed them would it be constitutional ?

if the NRA says its okay then it’s constitutional (not my personal position BUT it is the way this nation is – period)

frankD

.

Next.

In finding the minimum essential coverage provision unconstitutional, U.S. Judge Henry E. Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia held in the commonwealth’s challenge to the act that “[n]either the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

By enacting the provision, Congress exceeded the powers granted to it under the Constitution, Judge Hudson said.

Further, because an individual’s personal decision to purchase health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution does not provide sanctuary, Judge Hudson said.

The necessary and proper clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws in furtherance of its constitutionally enumerated powers, and the minimum essential coverage provision is “neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution,” Judge Hudson said.

The judge also rejected the alternate argument that the provision is a valid exercise of Congress’ independent taxation power under the general welfare clause of the Constitution, saying “the notion that the generation of revenue was a significant legislative objective is a transparent afterthought. The legislative purpose underlying this provision was purely regulation of what Congress misperceived to be economic activity.”

http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/emergingissues/blogs/spotlightonhealthcarereform/archive/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rejects-commerce-clause-argument-finds-ppaca-health-insurance-individual-mandate-is-unconstitutional.aspx

The Supreme Court will throw it out. The Commerce Clause argument is NOT applicable. Next.

you mean it was UNconstitutional to kill saddam hussein ?

so then shouldn’t cheney/dubbya go to jail JUST LIKE zimmerman ?

just sayin

frankD

.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Any other questions?

Where in the Constitution does it say that someone has the right to kill another because they thought the person was a threat?

All I see is a right to bear arms, which I support.

Please answer the question.

Where SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution does it say that someone has the right to kill another because they thought the person was a threat?

I look forward to your reply. Thanks.

It has been shown repeatedly that you don’t know the first thing about the U.S. Constitution.

You didn’t even understand that the Constitution gives us a FEDERAL right to vote and that voting in Federal elections is actually a function of the FEDERAL Constitution.

Honestly.

How bout you learn the basic fundamentals of your own country!

Ever thought of that?

Your lies are getting more and more desperate.

Let’s not make it so that only CRIMINALS can protect themselves. ={

Remember, CRIMINALS are against laws that allow citizens to protect themselves and fight back!

There appears to be a sparse amount of editing going on at the PB Post.