OBAMACARE MUST STILL JUSTIFY FINES
AGAINST THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Supreme Court could hear another
ObamaCare challenge
New American – Raven Clabough –
20/11/2012
Staver
commented:
We argued that among other things
that Congress lacked the authority to pass the employer mandate, and even if
they had the authority, it collides with the free exercise of religion, both
under the individual mandate and the employer mandate, because of the forced
funding of abortion that applies to both.
Staver’s case had been ruled against
by the lower court, but Staver appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In September 2011, a federal appeals court ruled that ObamaCare amounts to a
tax, and that the Anti-Injuction Act of 1867 bars federal courts from preventing
the government from collecting taxes.
“The court of appeals refused to
even consider the merits of the issue, but instead said that it didn’t have
jurisdiction because the Anti-Injunction Act prohibited it from reaching the
merits until a tax is paid and refund sought — which would be sometime after
2014,” Staver said.
That is when Staver appealed
directly to the Supreme Court, asking them to determine that the Anti-Injunction
Act does not in fact apply to this case.
And Judge Andrew Napolitano believes the case could lead to a different Supreme Court
decision from its June ruling:
Just a guess — knowing the justices
and having studied this more years than I’d like to think — that perhaps the
Supreme Court is going to come up with a different outcome this time around.
Remember, it only upheld three or four parts of the statute. There are many,
many other parts of the statute that it could still look
at.
Meanwhile, the healthcare law is
also facing legal challenges elsewhere. Two Texas schools have filed the latest legal challenge to the preventative services
mandate in the healthcare law. Texas
Baptist University and Houston Baptist University filed the 32nd legal challenge
to the Health and Human Services mandate of the Affordable Care Act on October 9
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lawsuit
states, “Having to pay a fine to the
taxing authorities for the privilege of practicing one’s religion or controlling
one’s own speech is un-American, unprecedented and flagrantly
unconstitutional.”
No comments:
Post a Comment