Personal Liberty Digest™ will be upgraded this weekend to reflect a dynamic new look and mobile-friendly viewing to enhance your experience! Plus, we'll be providing even more of the compelling content you've come to expect, delivered in a whole new way!

  Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Federal Court Rejects Christian University’s Request To Overturn Obamacare, Opens Possibility Of New SCOTUS Consideration

July 12, 2013 by  

On Thursday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Commerce Clause of the Constitution’s gives Congress the authority to demand that employers purchase private health insurance for their employees or pay government fines.

By rejecting the Liberty University lawsuit that was a bid to overturn the healthcare law on grounds of religious freedom, the court opened up the possibility that the Supreme Court could once again hear arguments about Obamacare, as the university plans to appeal.

“Plaintiffs present no plausible claim that the act substantially burdens their free exercise of religion, by forcing them to facilitate or support abortion or otherwise,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote in the opinion. He wrote the law “allows an individual to obtain, and an employer to offer, a plan that covers no abortion services at all.”

Liberty attorney Mat Staver said the fight isn’t over.

“At least the court reached the merits and did not try to dodge the issues on procedural or standing grounds,” he said. “This clears the way to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will be the final stop anyway.”

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Federal Court Rejects Christian University’s Request To Overturn Obamacare, Opens Possibility Of New SCOTUS Consideration”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Bachelor With Sense

    Obamacare is a TAX according to Chief Justice Roberts. THEREFORE it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as the Obamacare Bill ORIGINATED in the SENATE and ALL Tax Bills MUST Originate in the HOUSE!! QED Pure and Simple… OBAMACARE is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Once you realize that Government is just a very large Gang, everything they do makes sense.

      • runnindeer

        Personally , I would prefer to have someone such as Tony Soprano as President other than this poser we have there now.

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          At least Tony would be honest about his criminality.

    • Smilee

      NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • CWA

        Smilee, every comment you make proves that you know absolutely nothing about the Constitution.

        • Smilee

          This had nothing to do with the Constitution it had only to do which house the bill originated in and it originated in the house so the Constitutions was followed. Your statement makes very clear you know nothing about it.

          • ChiefBoring

            That tax bills must originate in the house IS from the Constitution! Changing a fine to a tax is rewriting the bill.

          • Smilee

            Your wrong!! Roberts said to the effect that when government takes money from you is a tax regardless what it is called he did not change it from a fine to a tax he said a fine is a tax. I’m betting you have not even read his opinion or you would have known that.

          • ChiefBoring

            Go back and read the decision. Roberts had to redefine it as a tax because you cannot fine someone for not buying something. Commerce may be regulated, but not the absence of commerce. A speeding ticket costs you a fine, not a tax. A fine is a penalty for failure to obey a law. A tax is a revenue raising method, imposed on things or actions. Not upon non actions.

  • MARY

    When everyone in the senate and the house and especially our muslim pres. O have obamacare themselves, maybe, just maybe people will calm down. I doubt it!!

  • mistyl@windstream.net

    Obamacre is unconstitutional !

    • Smilee

      The court said otherwise and weather you want to admit it or not, their word counts and yours counts for nothing!!

      • jimmie smith

        “Counts for nothing?”…then who is in charge of all this?

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        The Supreme Court is a branch of the Federal Government. Who do you think they are going to side with?
        Besides that, the Constitution is pretty clearly written. How can 9 justices split interpretation of such by 5-4? Obviously if it’s that close a vote, the interpretation is biased.
        In essence, one Supreme Court justice has decided that the rest of us must be saddled with even more Big Government intrusion into our medical choices than we have already endured.
        http://mises.org/daily/3793
        As usual, Big Government has been the Problem, NOT the Solution!

        • smilee

          Just your silly conclusions as you do not understand how it all works.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            A typical useless comment from Sleepee.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        Sleepee says — “yours counts for nothing”.
        Once again, a Liberal Progressive has expressed his contempt for your own choices in your own life.
        Thanks Sleepee for revealing that side of yourself.

    • jimwilson81

      The case I am interested in is all the lawsuits against the HHS mandate. Every state of the union have lawsuits against Obama and Sebellus Human Health Service mandate which does violate the first amendment of the Constitution. That cannot make laws against religions which in effect they have done.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        It really doesn’t matter, because the Federal Government has no Power outlined in Article I, Section 8, that allows them to Force us to buy any product:
        http://www.cato.org/pubs/constitution/article1_en.html

        And before Sleepee bores us with the “General Welfare” lie, readers should read Federalist #41:
        http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

        The Confederacy got smart and took that clause out of their Constitution so that no slick lawyers could misconstrue it.

  • TheOriginalDaveH

    “the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Commerce Clause of the Constitution’s gives Congress the authority to demand that employers purchase private health insurance for their employees or pay government fines”.
    What a load of crap. The courts have become 3-ring circuses for political judgement instead of upholding the Constitution.
    The “Commerce Clause” gives Congress no such authority. When the Constitution was written, “to regulate” meant to make regular. That is, to keep States from favoring their own pet companies over out-of-state companies by virtue of differential taxes, and other protective devices. It did not give Congress the Power to tell companies how to operate.
    Government is always seeking ways to expand its Power over the rest of us. It’s time we stop them from that.

    An honest Judge speaks:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeTkXvL77l8

    • Smilee

      You may think your smarter than the court but your not. You have been misinterpreting the Constitution for ever.

      • Smile

        What a stupid judge he injects his personal views and not the legal ones so I can see why you would love him!!

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          No, Smilee, it is you who showers us with conjecture. Judge Napolitano is a Constitutional expert who has no ambitions for Power, so he can tell it like it is.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        The Constitution for Dummies (that would be you, Sleepee):
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ2kTyx2mSY

        • Smilee

          Why is it that you always support those who get wrong, I do not think you like our constitution as you seldom agree with it. I suspect Liberty will appeal this to the SC but there is little chance they will hear it and let the appeals decision stand. The appeals court got it right too.

        • Smilee

          Why is it that you always support those who get wrong, I do not think you like our constitution as you seldom agree with it. I suspect Liberty will appeal this to the SC but there is little chance they will hear it and let the appeals decision stand. The appeals court got it right too.

          • jimwilson81

            Actually it depends on the merits of the case.

          • TheOriginalDaveH

            Smilee says — “I do not think you like our constitution as you seldom agree with it”.
            It is you Smilee, who regularly stumps for misinterpretation of what our Founders intended.

            Those who would like to know what our Founders really thought can read the minutes from the Constitutional Convention:
            http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

            And the Federalist Papers which were written to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution:
            http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

            As far as liking our Constitution goes, Smilee, neither did many of the colonists (if not most). But alas, those striving for the Power and Perks of Leadership are persistent souls. The Constitution was a compromise between those who would have kept American Government like that of the British (Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, etc.) and those who would have had no Central Government at all.
            You could learn that, if you read this book:
            http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Conceived%20in%20Liberty_Vol_2.pdf

            Fat chance, eh?

  • Robbie

    The Supreme Court is not likely to take this on again – it has already declared universal health care as legal and lower courts do so as well. At some point those who fear it so are going to have to accept reality.

    • TheOriginalDaveH

      Unlike the Liberal Progressives who think reality is helping themselves to other peoples’ money, and Forcing other people to do things the Liberal Progressives’ ignorant way.

      • Robbie

        Fork over all your cash now!

        • TheOriginalDaveH

          Thanks for your honesty, Robbie.

  • ChiefBoring

    This won’t be settled till Chief Justice Roberts at some point actually rules on the case, instead of rewriting it as a tax.

    • smilee

      He did not rewrite it as a tax he said a fine is a tax and something to the effect that when government takes money from you it is a tax regardless what you call it so a fine is a tax and they mean the same and to change something it cannot remain the same so your take is wrong. Go read the decision and enlighten yourself.

      • TheOriginalDaveH

        It’s called Theft when you take somebody’s money against their will, no matter how many of you get together to take that money.
        The sad fact of the matter is that our country has become a Society of Criminals:
        http://freedomschool.org/2010/02/27/a-society-of-criminals-ben-oneill/

        “To say governments were formed to protect the rights of men would be historically incorrect. Almost all governments were formed by ruthless men exerting their will over others through the use of force. Some governments, over time, evolved toward the rule of law, perhaps only because their rulers saw that this would sanction their own continued enjoyment of the wealth that they possessed. In some instances, this evolution involved one or more “revolutions” in which those who were governed were able to better establish the rule of law”.
        http://mises.org/daily/3427

  • Libertarian58

    Lawyers, courts and judges have done what they always do and have stretched, , distorted and twisted the meaning of the commerce clause to mean whatever they want it to. It was intended to allow the government to REGULATE commerce between the states, not FORCE every citizen to buy into the scam of insurance. What a crock! And what a bunch of crooks!

  • 1baronrichsnot1

    It’s ruled a “tax” by scotus, therefore had to originate in the house, It didn’t and came from the senate, so is unconstitutional. And yes, muslims are exempt! Violates their religious statutes, much as ours. ‘Cept we aint exempt! It is gov’t meddling in religion, also illegal and unconstitutional. We know this, so what do we need with SCOTUS? I don’t believe they understand the constitution, the whole bill IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

  • BHR

    Our government has become a group of people who think they can take money from people who work simply by making a law. When the people realize that we are being robed by a bunch of crooks, these crooks will be gone. If you think all the money being taken for health care is for health care you are wrong. The money will be used to buy votes, in a couple of years, the money’s gone and they want more. Americans do not realize that every year the government adds more taxes. This is why the middle class is disappearing. There is now more government employees than private sector workers. If the liberals have there way we will all work for the government, nothing will be created, only mediocre.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.