Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Thanks obama for not defending the US Law
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SlugSlinger" data-source="post: 3122563" data-attributes="member: 7248"><p>Since obama set the precedence of not defending us law, we now have payback and this is great!</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 22px"><strong>Trump Sides With Texas, Won’t Defend Obamacare in Court</strong></span></p><p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AQO7fof-104/kartikay-mehrotra" target="_blank">Kartikay Mehrotra</a>June 7, 2018, 11:16 PM CDT</p><p>Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg</p><p></p><p>politics</p><p></p><p>By </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sessions cites tax reform act’s repeal of individual mandate<br /> <br /> </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">California-led group is left to defend Obamacare in lawsuit<br /> </li> </ul><p>The Trump administration is siding with Texas in the state’s <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Texas_Wisconsin_et_al_v._U.S._et_al_-_ACA_Complaint_(02-26-18).pdf" target="_blank">bid</a> to convince a federal judge that Obamacare is largely unconstitutional.</p><p></p><p>The Justice Department is tasked with defending federal statutes. But in this instance it agrees with the state that the individual mandate and other requirements should be deemed illegitimate as of Jan. 1, 2019.</p><p></p><p>Since Congress repealed the penalty for not having insurance in its tax reform package last year, much of the rest of the insurance statute becomes unconstitutional in 2019 and must be “struck down,” attorneys for the Justice Department said in a court filing Thursday. Such provisions include protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions from being charged more or being denied coverage.</p><p></p><p>The legal motion is mostly symbolic and any substantive action in the lawsuit will likely take months. In addition, the government doesn’t go so far as Texas and its fellow plaintiffs in arguing that the entire Affordable Care Act and the regulations issued under it are now invalid. For instance, it didn’t go after the creation of health insurance marketplaces, premium subsidies for low-income members and Medicaid expansion.</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"><strong>Supreme Court</strong></span></p><p>While U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions argues that no reasonable arguments exist to defend Obamacare, California led a coalition of 15 states and D.C. to fight Texas’s suit, saying the individual mandate has twice survived Supreme Court review and attempts by Congress to repeal the law, thus legitimizing it. Stripping away Obamacare would create a health crisis by putting at risk some $500 billion in health-care funding, according to a statement issued by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.</p><p></p><p>In short: The federal government is declining to defend federal law.</p><p></p><p>Sessions defended the unusual decision in a June 7 <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/1069806/download" target="_blank">letter</a> to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.</p><p></p><p>“The Department in the past has declined to defend a statute in cases in which the president has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional and made manifest that it should not be defended, as is the case here,” Sessions <a href="https://www.justice.gov/file/1069806/download" target="_blank">wrote</a>. “The Department will not defend the constitutionality” of the Affordable Care Act.</p><p></p><p>Three attorneys for the government withdrew from the case just minutes before the Justice Department’s filing in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, which signaled an internal rift within the administration over its role in defending U.S. law, according to University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley.</p><p></p><p>While Justice Department attorneys often advocate for laws they may personally disagree with, those three civil servants instead decided to exit from the case, which Bagley <a href="https://takecareblog.com/blog/texas-fold-em" target="_blank">described</a> as “almost unheard of.”</p><p></p><p>The case is Texas v. U.S., 4:18-cv-001 67, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SlugSlinger, post: 3122563, member: 7248"] Since obama set the precedence of not defending us law, we now have payback and this is great! [SIZE=6][B]Trump Sides With Texas, Won’t Defend Obamacare in Court[/B][/SIZE] [URL='https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AQO7fof-104/kartikay-mehrotra']Kartikay Mehrotra[/URL]June 7, 2018, 11:16 PM CDT Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg politics By [LIST] [*]Sessions cites tax reform act’s repeal of individual mandate [*]California-led group is left to defend Obamacare in lawsuit [/LIST] The Trump administration is siding with Texas in the state’s [URL='https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/Texas_Wisconsin_et_al_v._U.S._et_al_-_ACA_Complaint_(02-26-18).pdf']bid[/URL] to convince a federal judge that Obamacare is largely unconstitutional. The Justice Department is tasked with defending federal statutes. But in this instance it agrees with the state that the individual mandate and other requirements should be deemed illegitimate as of Jan. 1, 2019. Since Congress repealed the penalty for not having insurance in its tax reform package last year, much of the rest of the insurance statute becomes unconstitutional in 2019 and must be “struck down,” attorneys for the Justice Department said in a court filing Thursday. Such provisions include protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions from being charged more or being denied coverage. The legal motion is mostly symbolic and any substantive action in the lawsuit will likely take months. In addition, the government doesn’t go so far as Texas and its fellow plaintiffs in arguing that the entire Affordable Care Act and the regulations issued under it are now invalid. For instance, it didn’t go after the creation of health insurance marketplaces, premium subsidies for low-income members and Medicaid expansion. [SIZE=4][B]Supreme Court[/B][/SIZE] While U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions argues that no reasonable arguments exist to defend Obamacare, California led a coalition of 15 states and D.C. to fight Texas’s suit, saying the individual mandate has twice survived Supreme Court review and attempts by Congress to repeal the law, thus legitimizing it. Stripping away Obamacare would create a health crisis by putting at risk some $500 billion in health-care funding, according to a statement issued by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. In short: The federal government is declining to defend federal law. Sessions defended the unusual decision in a June 7 [URL='https://www.justice.gov/file/1069806/download']letter[/URL] to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. “The Department in the past has declined to defend a statute in cases in which the president has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional and made manifest that it should not be defended, as is the case here,” Sessions [URL='https://www.justice.gov/file/1069806/download']wrote[/URL]. “The Department will not defend the constitutionality” of the Affordable Care Act. Three attorneys for the government withdrew from the case just minutes before the Justice Department’s filing in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, which signaled an internal rift within the administration over its role in defending U.S. law, according to University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley. While Justice Department attorneys often advocate for laws they may personally disagree with, those three civil servants instead decided to exit from the case, which Bagley [URL='https://takecareblog.com/blog/texas-fold-em']described[/URL] as “almost unheard of.” The case is Texas v. U.S., 4:18-cv-001 67, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth). [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Thanks obama for not defending the US Law
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom