• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare mandate


Registered Member
It doesn't matter, the administration has already decided to ignore these rulings. The Supreme Court better rule it unconstitutional or Obama & his democrat supermajority will have "fundamentally changed America", undone the constitution's primary purpose to limit government, and put us on a path of fiscal insolvency until it is repealed.


Son of Liberty
The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law.
The highlighted part is my concern.

It's obvious to anyone who knows Constitutional law, that is read prior decisions, understand it's history, etc..that mandating that someone purchase something is unconstitutional. I wonder how many would feel if the federal government mandate that EVERYONE purchase a hand gun so we can ALL participate in defending our country should there be a foreign invasion.

I'm fairly confident the Supreme Court will agree with this lower court ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional. Sure you have Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer who don't respect precedent and the words actually used in the Constitution enough to over turn this ruling (I didn't include Kagan because she will likely have to recuse herself although I don't expect her to voluntarily do it) but there are enough on the Court who do respect precedent and history enough to agree with this ruling.

My concern is are they also going to over turn the lower court's ruling that the entire Act is unconstitutional? If only this section is unconstitutional, how is the Act going to be funded in part? The CBO's numbers in regards to the Act are already misleading as they do not account for any costs not made by the federal government but by insurance companies, and they will be even more so if the mandate portion of the bill is unconstitutional and the rest is not.

The Act is already going to through this country into further debt, the Act without the mandate will put that debt into hyperdrive.