http://gratewire.com/topic/kleinbard-the-health-care-law-is-constitutional-still News & Opinion - Grated Fresh Daily en-US Thu, 23 May 2013 13:57:25 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://gratewire.com/search.php http://gratewire.com/topic/kleinbard-the-health-care-law-is-constitutional-still#post-36629 Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:34:45 +0000 Obot 50549535 36629@http://gratewire.com/ <p>You appear to be assuming that I think the argument presented in this article will prevail. But, as I've mentioned before, I think the success of the mandate in the Supreme Court is not assured.</p> <p>I thought this article was interesting because it presented an aspect of the case that was new to me.</p> <p> </p> http://gratewire.com/topic/kleinbard-the-health-care-law-is-constitutional-still#post-36623 Fri, 01 Apr 2011 06:57:07 +0000 SqueekyFromm 36623@http://gratewire.com/ <p>OBOTBR549:</p> <p>You are falling prey to a form of circular reasoning. Which is, LOGICALLY Obamacare is constitutional, and those who disagree are just relying on their personal opinion not sound legal reasoning, because the courts rely on sound legal reasoning.</p> <p>The REALITY is that people in the courts base some of their sound legal reasoning on personal opinions and on case law which is also based in part on personal opinion, etc.</p> <p>For example, the law case about feeding cows or pigs whatever way back when, was probably NOT constitutional in any broad sense, just necessary for the legislation to succeed. Sooo, law gave way to opinion that the law should proceed, not sound legal reasoning. Now, that case is built into the "sound legal reasoning" for the pro-Obamacare people. And, if the conservative judges disagree with the feed place law case, you will say that is their personal opinion, when really it is just overturning the personal opinion of an earlier day.</p> <p>Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter</p> http://gratewire.com/topic/kleinbard-the-health-care-law-is-constitutional-still#post-36576 Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:58:59 +0000 Obot 50549535 36576@http://gratewire.com/ <p>I just blundered into this interesting note, which basically points out that Supreme Court ruling that Judge Henry Hudson relied on in striking down Obamacare has long since been abandoned by the Supreme Court. Since this article was written (3 months ago) we've had one more Federal judge find it constitutional, and one more, Judge Roger Vinson, who also relied on the same overturned decision as Hudson.</p> <p><a href="http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/12/kleinbard-.html">Kleinbard: The Health Care Law Is Constitutional (Still)</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Little attention was paid when two federal District Courts recently concluded that the new federal health care law was constitutional, but Monday’s ruling by a federal District Court Judge, Henry Hudson, in Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, was front page news because he held the insurance mandate at the center of the new law to be unconstitutional.<br />...<br />So why isn’t the penalty imposed for failure to comply with the individual mandate simply another tax?</p> <p>Judge Hudson’s answer is dumbfounding: In his view, this tax is really a disguised form of regulation of commerce, citing a case (the Child Labor Tax Case) decided some 90 years ago, and one which the Supreme Court itself has said represents a line of reasoning that the Court has long since abandoned.</p> </blockquote> <p>The article is by Edward Kleinbard, a law prof at USC. This link goes to a blog that has a longer excerpt, and a link to a PDF of the article.</p> <p> </p>