Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Government

Obamacare Day 2: Supreme Court Takes Up Individual Mandate

Mar. 27, 2012 8:43am Jonathon M. Seidl

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up the key question in the challenge to President Barack Obama’s historic health care overhaul: Can the government force people to carry insurance or pay a penalty?

The justices hear extended arguments on that topic Tuesday. It’s the linchpin of the law’s aim to get medical insurance to an additional 30 million people, at a reasonable cost to private insurers and state governments.

Virtually every American will be affected by the outcome, due this summer in the heat of the presidential and congressional election campaigns.

The administration says Congress has ample authority to impose the requirement that most people carry insurance or pay a penalty. Twenty-six states and a small business group trying to get the law struck down call the insurance requirement an unprecedented power grab by Congress.

They say that not even decades of high court rulings that endorsed an expansive view of congressional authority can support the health care law.

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Individual Mandate

David Ficke, of Maryland Heights, Mo., attends the "Gateway to November" rally hosted by the St. Louis Tea Party and Tea Party Patriots, Sunday, Sept. 12, 2010, at the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. (Photo: AP)

If upheld, the law will force dramatic changes in the way insurance companies do business, including forbidding them from denying coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions and limiting how much they can charge older people.

The law envisions that insurers will be able to accommodate older and sicker people without facing financial ruin because its most disputed element, the insurance requirement, will provide insurance companies with more premiums from healthy people to cover their increased costs of care.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, traveling Tuesday with Obama in South Korea, reiterated the administration’s contention that the health care law is constitutional, noting that the individual mandate provision had support among Republicans. However, Carney said, “The president feels that this is something for the court to decide, not for us to weigh in on directly.”

The law also dramatically expands the state-federal Medicaid program for low-income Americans, with the federal government covering almost all the additional costs.

On Monday, the justices signaled they are ready to confront the big issues in the case, appearing to reject the contention that it was too soon for a decision. Audio of Monday’s argument can be found at: http://bit.ly/GSXEpf .

A 19th century law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid. The law could apply to the health care case because the insurance requirement doesn’t kick in until 2014 and any penalties will be paid along with federal income tax on returns due by April 2015.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., defending the health law, urged the court to focus on what he called “the issues of great moment” at the heart of the case. The states and the National Federation of Independent Business also want the court to go ahead and decide on the law’s constitutionality without delay.

Administration officials involved with the defense and implementation of the health care law, Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, were in the courtroom Monday. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi also were in the crowd that filled the courtroom’s 400 seats.

Outside the packed courtroom, marching and singing demonstrators on both sides – including doctors in white coats, a Republican presidential candidate and even a brass quartet – voiced their eagerness for the court to either uphold or throw out the largest expansion in the nation’s social safety net since Medicare was enacted in 1965.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum declared anew that GOP front-runner Mitt Romney has no standing to challenge Obama on the law since Massachusetts passed a somewhat similar version when Romney was governor. “If you really want Obamacare repealed,” Santorum said outside the court, “there’s only one person who can make that happen.”

Later Monday, Romney said again he would repeal the law, calling it an unconstitutional power grab.

—

Associated Press writers Pete Yost, Jesse Holland and Jessica Gresko contributed to this report.

Carousel image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (103)

mikee1
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:27am
Just remember this: This is another example of the NEO-SATANIST DUMMYCRAPS trying to strip you of your FREEDOMS and ENSLAVE you and your CHILDREN in this world. Only YOU can stop them.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Brother Winston Smith
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 11:12am
  …just like republican Medicare Part D, NCLB, DHLS and the “Patriot” Act.
  
  Ron Paul 2012!
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 11:33am
  So the RINO’s spent too much, it’s called Progressives, they are the enemy of state, no matter if the have R or D after their names. When are you people gonna wake up to see that Fabian Socialists are in control? Kick them all out in November 2012, this would be a good start, and repeal all of these laws that the Progressives have created, including Progressive Income Tax, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, EPA and a whole lot of others, they only serve to repress our freedoms. We have crony capitalism now and socialism light – get rid of those beasts and we stand a chance! Otherwise, bend over and kiss it goodbye.
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 11:36am
  Let me be clear, Democrats and Republicans that are ‘Progressives’ are the enemy of the state, I don’t want to be taken out of context here!
  
  Report this comment
- cuinsong
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 12:27pm
  I have been asking this question about the interstate commerce act!
  
  I need to have something explained to me!
  1. The interstate commerce act regulates triad & sales across state lines. Right?
  2. The insurance industry by law cannot now offer me insurance across state lines. Right?
  So my question is how can health insurance which can not be purchased across state lines fall under the interstate commerce act when no interstate commerce is involved?
  
  So far I have not had a creditable answer!
  This sounds like double talk to me and this song will help you understand.
  “What’s Wrong With This Song” http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_9134749
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 12:58pm
  You ask:
  
  So my question is how can health insurance which can not be purchased across state lines fall under the interstate commerce act when no interstate commerce is involved?.
  
  hmmmm, well, if you live in Texas, you can only buy health insurance from companies that have a charter to do business in Texas. It regulates the fact you CANNOT buy across state lines. It is INTRA-state purchasing in its definition.
  
  Your question is a bit confusing to me…but as of right now, the individual mandate inclusive, if tax or penalty, is unconstitutional, in that it forces people to buy something when doing absolutely nothing but sitting on their rear end at home. It is akin to telling us what we can and cannot buy for food, therefore it is illegal.
  
  Report this comment
- cuinsong
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 2:30pm
  @UNIX
  Have you read the ICA? Their is no indication of how to regulate something INTRA-state?
  That seems to be our problem in this country!
  People make up stuff or language to try and re-write the Constitution with their interpretations!
  The commerce act regulates action that is across state lines only, not action within the state.
  If I wish to buy something made in another state and that product is transported through other states or is electronically passed thru servers outside my state, then it can be regulated by the ICA.
  Not purchases that are only available in my state because no other stat sovereignty is involved.
  The insurance I can purchase in Calif. is regulated by Calif. not the Fed’s.
  This bill is about taking over commerce in any form period!
  
  Report this comment
EndTheGOPTEA
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:18am
Obama Wins… The court will find it all legal.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:43am
  Obama’s solicitor general had Breyer and Scalia laughing at him. Sotormayor and Kagan were grilling him. He’s not off to a good start. Even Ginsberg was telling him he’s knowledge of case law was lacking. When the liberals on the court is jumping on Obama’s guy, it’s not looking good so far.
  
  Keep dreaming pal.
  
  Report this comment
- flipper1073
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 11:52am
  If even the Liberals are calling you Stupid
  You got to be pretty damn Stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- Economist
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 12:09pm
  Clearly not constitutional – Here me out on this logic!
  
  The commerce clause was intended to keep states from imposing tarriffs on each other. The FEDS have been over reaching for decades now using the commerce clause extremely loosely. Hopefully this court will finally stand up to the Government.
  
  I can prove it this way by using Prohibition (the 18th Amendment) as an example:
  
  If the commerce clause lets the Goverment regulate the sale of goods (prohibit/mandate), why did we need an 18th Amendment to the Constitution to prohibit Alcohol which is clearly bought and sold between the states?
  
  The answer is that the Federal Gov. does not have this power. The reason we needed an 18th amendment is because back in the 1920′s people RESPECTED the Constitution. Where as now we don’t.
  
  If you want to mandate health care you should need to draft an amendment to do so, because having the FEDeral GOV mandated that individuals buy something for the sole purpose of living is definately NOT constitutional. And opens the door for the goverment to mandate or prohibit anything it chooses.
  
  Report this comment
- amhc_ret
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 12:22pm
  Unfortunately I must agree. There is no way the court will strike this down with Barry still in office. Plus, I’m sure the “deal is in” to ensure it’s stand. So much for the SCOTUS being impartial.
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 12:59pm
  endthegoptea, I find you illegal, how’s that for the other shoe fella?
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 1:04pm
  BTW – you’re nothing more than a puppet for the communists! No originality, no critical thinking, just dumb as a box of rocks. Just wait until the Obamacare really kicks in and dips into your bank account w/o your consent. LOL amoeba!
  
  Report this comment
eyestoseeearstohear
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:16am
- CORRECTION –

” We have an “inelligable president”.
But – because of STUPIDITY AND DISREGARD OF THE LAWS..we have Obama.”
~~~~~

Sorry…I’m nervous and angry….so much that I can’t SPELL!

I meant to type – INELIGIBLE….NOT INELLIGABLE.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
crusaderx9
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:14am
This is the final step for the dismantling of individual freedoms for We the People.

IF obamacare passes there will be no room left for the citizen as the Federal Government expands and legislatively reaches into every aspect of an individual’s life. States would be marginalized as well as Federal intervention will crush any attempts for the States to protect the liberties of its citizens as well.

The whim of the Federal government will wreak havoc on all but the ruling class and an eternal darkness will fall upon the land. The USA is not above the cycle of the Rise and Fall of Nations…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Firesaber
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:39am
  Crusaderx9, you really should read 2084 (the search for love hope and faith). I think it’s right down your alley. Get the Edited version though. It’s on Amazon.
  
  Report this comment
eyestoseeearstohear
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:59am
If his is ruled “constitutional” – we are no longer a “republic” – and will be the
ONE SWEEPING MOVE OBAMA HAS WANTED ALL THE LONG.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTHCARE ….IT IS ABOUT CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE.

We will then be SUBJECTS/PROPERTY OF THE GOV’T…and can be told and made
to do ANYTHING…OR ELSE!

God – PLEASE forgive us for our sins AND STUPIDITY!
HELP US IN OUR TIME OF DESPERATE NEED.

Pray America –
We CANNOT let this WRONG THING….become right for evil means & purposes.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
airportengineer
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:58am
HHS Sebiulus and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayo were spotted at the SAME Restaraunt in DC on the same NIGHT BEFORE THE Obamacare HEARINGS!!! Pretty Funny! Pretty Pathetic! Coincidence? NO!

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/03/26/hhs-secretary-kathleen-sebelius-and-supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-hanging-out-at-restaurant-nora-in-washington-dc/#more-32413

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
hi
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:56am
We need divine intervention. Confess your sins to the Lord and start praying every day the mandate is deemed not constitutional. We need to turn to God in order to retain our freedom from the liberal oppression.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
gbfreak
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:54am
Does anyone realize that Romney’s logo…in bold letters at all his rally’s is now – Repeal and Replace Obamacare? Replace??????? Really??????? Is he serious?????? Hence the big government obamma lite…….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GoodStuff
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 12:46pm
  What’s wrong with Repeal and Replace? I support Repeal and Replace. Replace ObamaDontCare with actual health care reform, such as allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, medical malpractice reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits, etc, etc.
  
  Report this comment
Abraham Young
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:41am
The president feels this is something for the courts to decide.

So this is where we are today, we have an alleged former Constitutional law professor, who believes anything they can sneak past the court is fair game.

Some shtick. We have some systemic issues here, beginning with turning our collective back on the Lord.

And permitting progressive philosophy to overtake our school.

Teach your children well.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ishka4me
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:49am
  How is this not 9 to 0 against Obamacare?
  
  Report this comment
- ishka4me
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:52am
  the latest 2nd ammendment rulings from the supreme court will show how this case will be ruled.
  
  Report this comment
- oldguy49
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:52am
  people……..this is the plan for the takeover of our lives……………..real fabian socialism………………
  
  Report this comment
- eyestoseeearstohear
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:03am
  We have an “inelligable president”.
  But – because of STUPIDITY AND DISREGARD OF THE LAWS..we have Obama.
  
  Report this comment
- @leftfighter
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:07am
  The headline on the main page was “D-Day for Obamacare”
  
  I have to disagree. D-Day for Obamacare will be the day SCotUS rules on it.
  
  D-Day as in: “Ding Dong, the mandate’s dead.”
  
  Report this comment
- AOL_REFUGEE
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:20am
  I’m sure Ruth Biddy Ginsburg already has her mind made up – in favor of the mandate.
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 11:05am
  Obama was a “senior lecturer” not a professor. University of Chicago say it’s “regarded as” a professor however there’s quite a difference between “regarded as” and actually being one.
  
  Report this comment
Jimbo
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:41am
Arlen Specter: Romneycare a Blueprint for Obamacare: Newmax continues it’s one sided relentless attack on the soon to be GOP Candidate for President, Mit Romney. One sided articles like this one will not help Santorum or Newt but they sure will help Obama. Humm is this what your are hoping for. Do you really think we can survive four more years of Obama. If the Dems are saying this it’s because they are scared of Romney. And they should be. I wonder what President Romney will think about Newsmax when he is elected?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RVNmaddog
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:35am
The logical extension of the Commerce Clause appears to be the regulation of people between the states. Can the Federal Government decide if too many have left NY and prevent from moving to FL? Should the Government decide if a NJ resident can work in NY? Time to limit the Government before it becomes the very thing the Founders revolted against.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavallo
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:20am
  Perfect example. Under the government’s argument, there is no limit. Someone working in another state and living in a foreign state effects interstate commerce. Travel from one state to another state effects interstate commerce. They can restrict your travel, and under their arguments can ask that you pay a fee to travel from one state to another. Businesses leaving California to Texas or other no income tax state might find themselves penalized under federal law. People as well. If this stands, you are a subject of the State to be ruled at their whim, and your freedoms are a benevolent gift from your rulers.
  
  Report this comment
SamIamTwo
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:34am
Today should be of great interest.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Abraham Young
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:32am
Now we discover the closet communists on the bench. This will be very interesting indeed.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
13th Imam
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:28am
I listened to that pinch faced old bitty speak yesterday. It never seems that Progressive DEMOCRATS like this gang of four have to follow the United States Constitution. She has her closed mind made up already. And that softball playing newbie with manhands, should recuse herself.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:25am
.
5-4 Obama Care will be upheld…….

Then might be the right time for some Civil Disobedence, don’t sign up. Can’t throw all of us in jail at one time…..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavallo
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:51am
  That is what the NDAA is for, I hear that Alex Jones has some theory that they have fema camps planned for just such an occurance, and although I used to think he was crazy, the combination of the NDAA, and bobo’s executive order… I am not so sure now. If bobo care gets made the law of the land I will mock anyone who claims this is a free country. In fact I probably should be mocking them now.
  
  Report this comment
dannyo
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:20am
here’s the new reality, you know how there is always some proud relative or parent or baby momma or baby daddy standing over a newborn baby saying “you can be anything you want to be as long as you put your mind to it, even the president of the united states”, not anymore, the libs in this country are now telling the baby “you don’t have to do anything young’en, lotta conservatives waking up in the morning and working 9 to 9 to keep you goin’ honey, watch price is right all day if ya want to, obama guy gonna get everthing for ya”..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
zman173rd
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:16am
It would not be to their nature to deminish their control over us. Government is governing/control.
I’m betting they’ll pass the controlling part of Obamacare and throw the people a minor bone to appease the masses. They’ll make it look like they did us a favor. Remember, it was SCOTUS that enforced and continues to enforce the Commerce clause. That is the defining law that is killing capitalisim today. Okay that and all those phonie “monopoly” theories.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Just in time
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:12am
There was no severabilty clause written into the law. So if even one part is considerd Unconstitutional it all gets thrown out, right? Kagan must recuse herself it’s the law, not a suggestion.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavallo
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:07am
  You’re forgetting who these people are. I wouldn’t hold your breath in expecting professional honesty. You might pass out and knock your head. Although that might be the last time you are able to use your private insurance. In my honest opinion I think this is the final straw towards fascist control. If this stands there is no limit to the government other than their generous benevolence. Start learning to kneel down and pray towards Washington DC.
  
  Report this comment
jakartaman
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:08am
If our SCOTUS finds this constitutional then I will take three courses of action.
1 ) Stop paying Federal income tax – immediately
2) Renounce citizenship
3) Move out of the USSA – United Socialist States of America

Because this is no longer my country!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- littlemule
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:14am
  And where would you go that’s so much better?
  
  Report this comment
- Abraham Young
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:34am
  Argentina.
  
  Report this comment
- MKDAWUSS
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:40am
  Lemme guess, some country whose healthcare is paid for by the American taxpayer?
  
  (Yes, we pay for certain countries’ national healthcare systems!)
  
  Report this comment
- jakartaman
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:05am
  If I told you – then it may get a little crowded.
  It is a warm place that is safe and democratic – with very low taxes and more freedoms
  than the USSA
  
  Report this comment
huey6367
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:07am
If we can prove that Barry is not a US citizen then he is not fit for office. Meaning that all legislation and executive orders and moot. Someone concentrate on that. I feel that is our best bet to rid ourselves of this guy once and for all.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- eyestoseeearstohear
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:12am
  Been saying that FROM DAY ONE!
  
  But – people scoff and laugh at it.
  IF this thing passes –
  won’t be too much laughing when we are STIPPED OF RIGHTS & LIBERTIES!
  
  P.S.
  While I still have a chance….
  I WISH ALL OF THE IDIOTS WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA- A POX ON YOU!
  
  Phew…at least I got THAT off my chest.
  
  ALL OF YOU HAVE BETTER SAY WHAT YOU WANT NOW…
  BECAUSE THIS CAKE COULD BE ALL DOUGH…UNLESS GOD STEPS IN!
  And, if he does – Sorry Lord, I beg for your forgiveness for being mean. :)
  
  Report this comment
- Darla_K
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:48am
  Someone should go to Kenya and poke around and talk to people that remember that Obama was born there. Bet you could get the info for a $100.00 bill.
  
  Report this comment
MONICNE
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:06am
God Bless the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Once they make the decision, we can get on with our lives again, create some jobs and begin paying down the debt.

TEA

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gonzo
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:20am
  So, Obama has been waiting for this ruling to get the economy going? Dream on.
  
  Report this comment
kickagrandma
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:04am
Remember the lightning strike by the wh not long ago???? Be good if some of the members of the supremes remember that. GOD is capable (and I’d bet willing) of moving it from one locale to the other. Just sayin….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MONICNE
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:08am
  In response to your lightning statement, I respectfully think Sarah Palin said it best, WTFO?
  
  TEA
  
  Report this comment
brntout
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 8:55am
If the “penalties” are due to be paid on April the 15th along with the taxes,just how many will file? I think that is a coincidence,right ? I mean sounds like a tax to me…Or am i losing it?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lynnissmart
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 8:51am
Strike the law down, strike the law down….land the originators on their a s s!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Apple Bite
Posted on March 27, 2012 at 8:50am
Cross our fingers, and pray that these 8 chosen, will follow the laws on the book and do what’s right by the people, and not by whats politically advocated.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- brntout
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 8:58am
  You missed one.
  
  Report this comment
- brntout
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 8:59am
  Unless she recuses herself,but she has the judicial morality of a tick.
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 9:45am
  @BRNTOUT
  
  And the face to match.
  
  OMG 2012!
  
  Report this comment
- Apple Bite
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 10:53am
  She should have been replaced years ago. The fact they kept her around as long as they did suggests it was all about politics, and not about doing right by the laws of this country…
  
  So “8″ it is =P
  
  Report this comment
- flipper1073
  Posted on March 27, 2012 at 12:07pm
  Applebite
  I think they’re talking about Kagan (the newest member of the court)
  Not Ginsberg (the oldest member I think)
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.