Obama won a simple majority of 51% in the recent presidential election, hardly a mandate. In addition, 1/3 of eligible voters did not even vote. Therefore, Obama got 65 million votes in a nation with a population of 390 million. This means that only 16% of the population voted for him, again hardly a mandate.
mandate (4)
Anti Obamacare activists given new life with U.S. Supreme Court order
for new hearing on Obamacare religious school challenge
The U.S. Supreme Court has breathed new life into the anti Obamacare movement by ordering the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals court to hear Liberty University’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare. The university had brought an action against having to implement the law on the grounds of equal protection and religious freedom. President Obama insisted during the presidential campaign that religious freedom would not be inhibited or an issue for religious colleges and religious organizations would have to consider.
According to Fox News, the school is challenging being forced to provide insurance which pay for birth control against the institution’s constitutional rights. Liberty University and many opponents firmly believe that religious institutions are protected from having to adhere to this constitutional violation under the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.
It appeared that many had seemingly resigned themselves to being victimized by the June U.S. Supreme Court decision as well as the recent reelection of Obama which appeared to defeat overturning the bill. But, legal sanity still prevails in the form of state leaders that are now openly opposing the merits of the law with renewed determination.
A number of republican governors are not waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to analyze the tea leaves in order to take concerted action against this draconian and oppressive federal interventionist law. The governors refuse to have their citizens burdened as Governor Kasich of Ohio warned, “States do not have any flexibility to build and manage exchanges in ways that respond to unique needs of their citizens or markets.”
Monday, November 26th, according to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, over 16 states have already indicated that they will not be implementing Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges in their states. In fact, Ohio governor John Kasich was joined by Texas governor Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sean Parnell of Alaska, and John Heineman of Nebraska, among others in opposition to state-run health exchanges.
In effect, these governors are providing the lead for Obamacare battleground opponents who can slow down and eventually reduce the implementation of the most odorous and oppressive aspects of the bill.
Democrats who have been doing the happy dance over the reelection of President Obama should slow down that roll to a “wait and see” crawl. More and more states and their citizens will rally against full implementation of the law based upon being deprived of their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Others will seek protection of their religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.
It’s not been a good week for Obamacare, by any measure:
A) Today the U.S. House of Representatives voted 245-189 to repeal the law (a far larger margin then originally passed it). The fact that only three Democrats voted to repeal the law shows the tremendous sway that Nancy Pelosi still holds B) Two Rasmussen Reports surveys meanwhile showed that 75% of American voters want changes to Obamacare; and C) 56% of voters actually want it repealed, while
D) six more states (Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming) joined a suit claiming the law is unconstitutional. This brings to twenty-sex, the number of states involved in the lawsuit originally begun by Florida. The other nineteen states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
All six of the new states joining the law suits have Republican Attorney Generals, but the action in the House was, at least, somewhat bi-partisan as three Democrats joined the unanimous Republican voting ranks against Pelosi and the health care “reform” bill. With the new additions, over half the country’s states are now opposing the law. "It sends a strong message that more than half of the states consider the health care law unconstitutional and are willing to fight it in court," Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
All six of the new states joining the law suits have Republican Attorney Generals, but the action in the House was, at least, somewhat bi-partisan as three Democrats joined the unanimous Republican voting ranks against Pelosi and the health care “reform” bill. With the new additions, over half the country’s states are now opposing the law. "It sends a strong message that more than half of the states consider the health care law unconstitutional and are willing to fight it in court," Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.
The states claim the health care law is unconstitutional and violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. Government attorneys have said the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.
Lawsuits have been filed elsewhere. A federal judge in Virginia ruled in December that the insurance-purchase mandate provision was unconstitutional, although two other federal judges have upheld the requirement. It’s widely believed the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the issue.
Meanwhile, at the White House, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed attaching any importance to the vote repealing the law, saying the Republican effort was “not a serious legislative” push. Democrats have a majority in the Senate and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said his party would block repeal in that chamber; and will not allow the bill to even reach the Senate floor if he has his way.
In the Florida case, the states also argue the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it. They say the new law gives the state's the impossible choice of accepting the new costs or forfeiting federal Medicaid funding. By 2024 at the latest, the new Obamacare requirements for the state side of Medicaid are potentially expected to bankrupt almost all the fifty states. As a side note: Unfunded liabilities of $112 TRillion in Social Security, Medicare, and the federal side of Medicaid amount to more than double the gross national product of the entire world. These three entitlement programs and the new Obamacare entitlement appear nationally and for the states to be ticking time bombs . . . .
Florida U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson is expected to rule later this month whether he will grant a summary judgment in favor of the states or the Obama administration without a trial. Former Florida Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit within seconds after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined the suit saying that the law’s costs and paperwork would make small business ownership a losing proposition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made similar assessments about Obamacare. A recent analysis showed that where before there stood only the patient and his/her doctor . . . 1,968 bureaucrats have now entered the relationship courtesy of Obamacare.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
Hello everyone, I know lots of people are psyched with the latest news out of Virginia.. I know I am! I am one of the unlucky residents of Massachusetts who is unable to afford healthcare. My employer doesn't offer it, and instead of the state offering to assist me in purchasing it, they decided to fine me $2,000 in 2009.
I am currently in a court battle with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I know there are many Massachusetts residents who know about my ongoings but I don't believe it's reached nationwide coverage.
The Boston Herald has run several articles on my case, I've been interviewed by several radio shows, and did a quick television interview on NECN.
I should also add that I am representing myself in this lawsuit against the state, considering I cannot afford to hire an attorney. His or her fees would outweigh the cost of the fines anyways. I have filed a Motion for Judgment with the Superior Court and I have a hearing scheduled on January 6th, 2011. I honestly have no idea what's going to happen!
If any of you folks are on Facebook I'd love for you to visit the page I setup to keep people in the loop. Here's the link: Merlina vs. Massachusetts
The state has hired a private law firm to fight me. The latest news from the Herald is that they are paying those lawyers $125/hr to fight my case. It must be nice to have unlimited resources. I on the other hand am just a 29 year old guy who cuts glass for a living in Peabody, MA for a small family business. *sigh*
Keep up the good fight!
Michael Anthony Merlina
