OBAMACARE MUST STILL JUSTIFY FINES AGAINST THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Supreme Court could hear another ObamaCare challenge
New American – Raven Clabough – 20/11/2012
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
schools have filed the latest legal challenge to the preventative services
mandate in the healthcare law. Texas Texas
Baptist University and 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.” Houston Baptist University