Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Watch: Rioters in London Clash With Police Over ‘Cleaver’ Terror Attack

Government

It Looks Like Obamacare Has a Really Good Chance of Going Back to the Supreme Court

Nov. 1, 2012 3:00pm Mytheos Holt

Earlier this year, in a case that emerged as a landmark in the question of where Federal power over commerce and the choices of individuals ends, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare’s “individual mandate” as a tax, but rejected it as a usage of Congress’s power under the commerce clause. The Court also ruled on questions pertaining to the law’s allocation of Medicaid.

But as any constitutional expert will tell you, this ruling need not be decisive if other issues with the law emerge. And based on a decision by the Justice Department today to recommend that the Supreme Court look at other constitutional issues raised by the President’s health care law in the face of arguments by Liberty University, it is eminently possible that Obamacare could be back before the court either this term or next, according to Fox News.

The issues raised by Liberty University are completely new, and pertain mostly to the contraception mandate, which Liberty University is challenging on the grounds of free exercise of religion. As TheBlaze’s own Becket Adams reported at the start of this month:

Despite having already ruled on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare law, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (i.e. “Obamacare”), the books may not be closed on this one.

“Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, has been fighting the employer mandate since the law was enacted, while challenging the law on other constitutional grounds. The school got as far as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to hear the merits of the case,” Fox News reports.

“That federal court decided that the original Liberty University lawsuit was barred because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which would block any challenge to a ‘tax’ before a taxpayer actually pays it, in this case referring to the penalties associated with failing to obtain health insurance,” the report adds.[...]

The Supreme Court on Monday took note of the university’s request and have issued the administration 30 days to respond, which may signal they’re taking the case seriously.

Now, with the administration having responded in a favorable way, chances are that Obamacare will be back in court, and once again over a mandate.

And unlike the individual mandate, it’s eminently possible that this one will be found to be clearly on the wrong side of the law.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (89)

environmentalandawake
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:42pm
Obama champions the Environment! Here is how the Enviro laws work; Clean Air, Clean Water, Endag Species, and most of the EPA programs are under state control. It was determined that the States could run their own programs cheaper, more complete, and monitor them best at the state level. Isn’t that exactly what Mitt was suggesting for the Healthcare in this country? What you really should ask yourself is; why does Obama want to centralize this program? Here is my answer; They can track the citizenary. You may think that Soc. Security does that, but it does not hold people regionaly; whereas a mandated medical program will require that you use doctors, med. cards, and resources from a certain region. If you all have a better explanation, I’m open to the experience.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
hades3
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:41pm
If therer is any doubt that the courts are stacked with Progressive judges, the Roberts decision should
should remove any iota of that doubt. The legal profession is a bastion of radical leftists, who hit the ground running in the 60′s in our education system from bottom to top.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Constantine Ivanov
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:38pm
….good chance of going to the Supreme Court…
where Justice Roberts will play a role of the Supreme Prostitute again.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
OBUMAURMAMA
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:36pm
Why you should pass this on to any and all!!

New Obamacare Tax Form Mandates Americans Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS
Here’s why the IRS will require Americans to disclose their personal health ID information starting in 2014
When Obamacare’s individual mandate takes effect in 2014, all Americans who file income tax returns must complete an additional IRS tax form. The new form will require disclosure of a taxpayer’s personal identifying health information in order to determine compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
Taxpayers may view the projected IRS form at http://www.ObamacareTaxForm.com or see below. On the form, lines 3-4 show where taxpayers will disclose their personal identifying health information.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
supermurder
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:27pm
Perhaps I’m ignorant of something but….
Didn’t Obamacare originate in the Senate?
Obamacare has been deemed a tax.
So, don’t taxes have to originate in the House?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BaltimoreJoe
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:38pm
  The Senate can amend bills coming over from the House and vote on them directly. They then can go back and forth in some kind of reconciliation…in the case of ObamaCare they did take a house bill, replace the entirety of the language and vote on that…that’s the way I understand it. That case is coming up through the courts. It’ll be interesting how it goes.
  
  You can listen to most any Supreme Court argument/decision at oyez.org. They go back to the 50s..want to know exactly what happend in 2000, go there an listen to it..most are just an hour long and I’ve picked up the bad habit of listening to them all:( I can personally say I can’t count the number of times in an ARGUMENT the Justices cut off an attorney that was about to bring up issues not heard in previous courts..i.e. can’t bring up it’s a new TAX if it wasn’t already brought up below. For Roberts to allow that…smacks to me of some type of bad influence..threats, extortion… yeah I know but just feels that way.
  
  Report this comment
Imademybiz
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:19pm
First, this is why it is so important that obama does not get back to the White House. There will be one, maybe two court appointments next term.

Second, the Constitution clearly states that any revenue raising bills MUST originate in the House. Obamacare originated in the Senate. This is a violation of our Constitution !!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Bluebonnet
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 7:14pm
  That too, but my main reasoning is I don’t want o to drag our Land of the Free back into the dark days.
  I don’t want to readjust my lifestyle to a communist/marxist downtrodden life style. I want honest people in the White House and honest people in Congress.
  We’ll always have some nasty people who spend their life being bought off by some ill-gotten scheme, but let’s not let it become the central theme of who America is and Who are making our laws.
  
  Report this comment
762x51
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:06pm
I don’t care. As long as the traitor John Roberts sits on the court this is a moot point.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:16pm
  Agreed, though maybe he will actually grow a spine and do what is RIGHT.
  
  Report this comment
- rutitooti
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 11:34pm
  I always thought Roberts called it a tax because he thought the American people would be irate, like the old “read my lips NO NEW TAXES”. Unfortunately I have not heard exactly how much of a tax it will be. I think many middle and low income tax paying workers, who will be forced to pay this tax, find out the exact amount they will pay each month, may change a few minds. I am extremely worried I do not have a penny left, so what will I give up; gas for work, food, electric, water? I’m terrified of what Wednesday will bring.
  
  Report this comment
- burnteye86
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 6:16am
  I wonder if these two have a shared agenda. I,ve always wondered what was actually said during his re swearing in and why it was flubbed in the first place. As if it were planned. From an old news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/obama_inauguration/7843881.stm …no Bible was used this time…and instead of an audience of millions, only a few close aides saw the second attempt, with even journalists excluded from the Map Room of the White House.)
  
  Report this comment
Thordomr
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:06pm
I don’t understand why it can’t go back to the courts for extortion charges. Even if it’s a tax what are they taxing? And if it’s an compliance tax then it’s extortion, since that’s the very definition of what extortion is. It’s no different than the mob coming to your house and saying you need to purchase the neighbor hood “protection insurance.”

Extort: : to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power : wring; also : to gain especially by ingenuity or compelling argument.

I still don’t understand how the ability of the government to tax trumps the governments inability to mandate the purchase of a product. Could someone explain this to me?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Atomic
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:04pm
The supreme court??? Oh GOD… Who besides a socialist has any faith in them?????? I’d keep Thomas and flush the rest down the toilet. There’s hardly an honest person in the bunch.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
southernORcobra
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:53pm
yeah does this do anything about the mandate? I doubt it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
PATTY HENRY
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:51pm
I was not convinced last time that what Roberts did would really hurt our cause. I had the feeling that he prevented the States from keeping on using (incorrect Eng.) Inter-State Commerce junk to delve into a lot of private businesses…. something like that. I think between the TRIPLED costs of this bogus Health Care and the “things” that have come out “now that we can look at the Bill” I don’t think it stands a snow balls chance in hell of passing again. Seriously I think that we have the ability to insure everyone without taking away the coverage of the 85% who are now covered; without breaking the Dr’s. I think we will have much better Health Care for many in the next few years, but this Cr@p that has been written for years by the very LIBERAL MARXIST CRONIES of this goon, Obama, (it was written by former Weathermen criminals) this bill will be trash soon. PEOPLE will be able to get help; People will be able to be covered, but not this bogus fraud that Obama wants.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- neoconpunk
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:34pm
  I agree that Roberts is a traitor to the constitution. Ruling in a manner to make “the court look good” is not a viable ruling. That being said he may have inadvertently fired up conservatives and tea party folks during this election since now it is upon the voters to put those people into office that will banish this thing legislatively. That’s the ONLY question I ask any politician these days. Would you vote to overturn this abomination?
  
  Report this comment
- KC1
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 8:17pm
  @Neoconpunk
  Really thats your biggest worry, and you will support the candidate that has already implemented socialized health care on his own state as Governor?
  I believe Romney said he was happy Obama was copying his plan and bringing it to a national stage. Then when he started eyeing the presidency he changed his mind, just a coincidence im sure. Im sure we can trust Romney to repeal Obama care.
  Romney is not Tea Party, he is by his own admission a progressive.
  Those of you who believe he will repeal Obama care based solely on his campaign promises are absolutely naive and/or have no recollection of any of his past statements advocating for nationalized health care.
  With such a gullible electorate (on both sides) its no surprise our country is in decline.
  Shame on us…
  
  Report this comment
ProbIemSoIver
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:49pm
“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BaltimoreJoe
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:47pm
The next and likely best challenge to ObamaCare is equal treatment between ‘special interest groups’ and the rest of us poor slobs re the 40% penalty if you purchase a ‘Cadillac plan’, most corporate plans fall into this category. Federal, State, Local Govt workers and most large Unions are EXEMPT from the 40% penalty. They get to keep their Cadillac plans and DO NOT have to pay the 40% penalty/tax…

Did you not wonder why SEIU/UAW/NEA paid folks double time to attend all those rally’s? They didn’t even bother to mask who they were..they figure we’re too stupid as a group to understand the penalty doesn’t apply to them.

And as for the grandfather clause…really doesn’t exist as ANY change to your policy negates that clause. Who among us has a plan that doesn’t change from year to year? new prescription drugs approved, some new favored over others, availability of scripts via mail-in changes, increases or decreases in co-pays…none of them stay the same and this #baitCarPres knows that.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DOra Glasberg
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:46pm
I predict they refuse to hear the case.
Time to get the country moving forward on other issues.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ohiowordguy
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:57pm
  …And just what issues would you deem more important than individual liberty, religious freedom and limits on Federal power?
  
  This isn’t a “slippery slope” issue, this is careening over the edge of the mountain.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:07pm
  Hey Dora Gasbag,
  
  Who do you think the Obama’s will hire in Jan 2013 to move back to Chicago?
  
  I’m betting on Mayflower…. LOL
  
  Report this comment
- LiL-Sambo
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 5:33pm
  dora glasberg you right in saying this wil not be taken up by the supreme court again, because after next tueday the new president will repeal this law.
  
  Report this comment
grayling646
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:44pm
Great! Another opportunity for SCOTUS to screw us over.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Landon410
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:36pm
proud i went to Liberty… dorm 6!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 71FOREVER
  Posted on November 2, 2012 at 4:18am
  Go Flames!!!
  Im a proud Liberty Alumni Parent.
  Proud Liberty Staff parent.
  Have you seen the changes on campus?
  CFAW this weekend…. LU-homesick now just thinking of it all.
  
  Report this comment
13th Imam
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:32pm
Bull crap

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Dscriptboy
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:31pm
I understand that the highest population in our prisons are drug offenders… In about five years, how many people will be in prison for no health insurance, or not paying the tax?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- skiz
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:54pm
  I will be one. I WILL NOT COMPLY!
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:03pm
  You won’t go to prison. You’ll just have your pay docked, or your bank account tapped.
  
  Report this comment
- DOra Glasberg
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:06pm
  What do you think ‘comply’ deal with?
  You showing up at emergency rooms for treatment costs ME money.
  You keep your present insurer, if you have one.
  What’s the issue?
  
  Report this comment
- TWOTL
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:31pm
  Dora, you seem concerned about paying for someone else’s healthcare when they show up at an emergency room without insurance. But by supporting Obamacare, you do understand that you’re now paying for everyone’s healthcare regardless of whether they have insurance or not – and not just when they show up at the emergency room.
  
  Unless, you’re one of those that doesn’t pay taxes. That would explain your views. If you do pay taxes, you’ll be paying a lot more with Obamacare. A whole lot more.
  
  I don’t think you get it. Anybody who does, would never support this terrible piece of legislation.
  
  Report this comment
- neoconpunk
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:39pm
  that’s the whole trick. Obinkie doesn’t WANT anyone to be able to comply with the current law. They want this thing to be a mess so they can “fix” it by simply instituting a single payer system. i.e. a completely government run system. Make people miserable enough they’ll then be more receptive to the government stepping in to “take it over” and “make it all better”. Don’t worry little sheeple, we know that “large sugary drinks” aren’t good for you so we’ll just take that choice away so you’re not tempted.
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:59pm
  VERCEOFDORA..
  
  The issue is that i had health insurance and the premiums went up by 26% after Obamacare was passed….
  I’m no longer insured and had to fire my only two employees because i can’t afford their insurance anymore either… Now you will be paying for all three of us.
  
  Report this comment
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:28pm
Anytime the progressives can get a precedent on vagaries they can then twist, of any sort- they view it as a win. If it’s intrusive in any way. It’s a big win for them. If it re-enforces even a part.. It’s a win. That is their game! They will cite anything as justification for more laws. That’s one of the things they mean by ‘progressive’ .

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
coyote1hell
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:21pm
The Stand Down Clown-in-Chief, cannot be happy about this…funny..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
HKS
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:14pm
I guess if Roberts is still there, it really doesn’t matter.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- serendip2b
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:45pm
  Sure, he will find a way to make it constitutional, that’s his job you know! Just sayin!
  
  Report this comment
Dan
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:13pm
Also from Liberty University: “The U.S. Department of Justice has informed the Supreme Court that it does not oppose Liberty University’s Petition for Rehearing the Court’s denial of review of the case of Liberty University v. Geithner.”

Does it trouble anyone to see the DOJ is OK with this going back to the S.C.O.T.U.S.?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- QuincySmith
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:21pm
  As the original oblamacare decision shows, they should be troubled letting it return. No one is sure how they will decide.
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:10pm
Great, Roberts forgot to kiss us last time.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- QuincySmith
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:19pm
  But not the monarch’s ring.
  
  Report this comment
- Ben__Franklin
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:28pm
  Roberts wants another turn with America only bareback this time.
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:32pm
  He never even offered us a cigarette :-)
  
  Report this comment
- OhioRifleman
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 5:17pm
  Wonder if he’ll use lube this time…?
  
  Report this comment
- Gonzo
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 5:51pm
  I think he owes us all dinner at least.
  
  Report this comment
U.N.hater
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:08pm
Don’t matter to me i’m not going to comply with it either way.http://www.atr.org/new-obamacare-tax-form-mandates-americans-a7285

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- U.N.hater
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:17pm
  Agenda 21 and obamacare. This will be here soon.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9644287/NHS-millions-for-controversial-care-pathway.html
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:06pm
Great now if we could get justices on the SCOTUS that interpret the constitution like the framers intended we could make some progress in limiting the size of government.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TSUNAMI_22
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:10pm
  You have a great imagination :)
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:18pm
  Slayer;
  
  “Great now if we could get justices on the SCOTUS that interpret the constitution like the framers intended we could make some progress in limiting the size of government.” ~~~ While I have great respect for you, I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean what you said: “progress in limiting the size of government.” Oxymoronic.
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 3:31pm
  Quincy If I sounded contradictory that wasn’t my intention,size matters and in this case the smaller the better.
  
  Report this comment
- DOra Glasberg
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 4:09pm
  Scalia makes it up as he goes along. Please
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 5:40pm
  Slayer;
  
  I know! It was just such a shock to see ‘progress’ive and small government in same sentence.
  
  Report this comment
- QuincySmith
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 5:42pm
  Dora, in this case it is Roberts who made it up.
  
  Report this comment
- grayling646
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 6:38pm
  Dora Dora Dora. Did he take lessons from you or did you take lessons from him?
  
  Report this comment
- desertman50
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 7:01pm
  I know what you meant Progressiveslayer and agree, this monster federal government needs downsizing. A good place to start would be the elimination of Homeland Security.
  
  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.