This conflict between the ideal of freedom and the desire to 'correct' the distribution of incomes so as to make it more 'just' is usually not clearly recognized. But those who pursue distributive justice will in practice find themselves obstructed at every move by the rule of law. They must, from the very nature of their aim, favor discriminatory and discretionary action. But, as they are usually not aware that their aim and the rule of law are in principle incompatible, they begin by circumventing or disregarding in individual cases a principle which they often would wish to see preserved in general. But the ultimate result of their efforts will necessarily be, not a modification of the existing order, but its complete abandonment and its replacement by an altogether difference system--the command economy.This is only one instance where President has decided to ignore the rule of law. Why should the rule of law get in his way of providing health care to the sick and poor? Hayek's book is a must read for those that want to defend the ideals freedom and to see where a country that decides to pursue socialism leads to.
What will be the end result of this Judge's ruling? Nothing. The case will go to the supreme court where its constitutionality will be upheld. The whole point of this post is to show that the President has decided to ignore the rule of law and to point out where this leads.
The ruling was a good win, and will set a good precedent to the Supreme Court, who, we must remember are slightly inclined to the conservative side of things. So, this is still one good promising line of attack against Obamacare.
ReplyDeletePoint taken regarding the Administration's plan to ignore the ruling. However, the states now have more ammunition to fight back against Obama too.
Since our courts follow case law, I think that there is plenty of precedents that will uphold the constitutionality of the new health care law.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting fact is that the UK's health care system is the 4th largest employer in the world according to this article. "The UK health service is thought to be the fourth-biggest employer on the planet after the Indian railways, the Chinese People's Liberation Army and Wal-Mart and, Edwards noted[Albert Edwards from the global strategy team at Societe Generale], it has 'an unfunded pension system entirely paid out of taxes.''Incredibly, not one penny, bean or cookie has been set aside for the future pensions of UK's doctors and nurses. But don't worry, they are in good company. I stand to be corrected but I believe the same to be true for Britain's teachers, civil servants and police officers,' Edwards added.
'Try switching the UK public sector from a defined benefit to a defined contribution system, as most of the private sector has done already, and the UK will descend into Yugoslavian chaos,' he said.
I think the health care law will remain and all of its negative effects and a similiar situation to that of the UK developing in America. But that is only my limited,educated assumption.
I don't think any conclusions can be made about whether the law will be upheld or not based on the recent ruling. Bush's Patriot Act saw early resistance, but the White House has a peculiar way of coming out the victor in these heavily political disputes.
ReplyDeleteThis ruling can be classified as a good thing though. It could have been held constitutional.
In other news, it is finals week next week and I am looking forward for my second 4.0 term. If I get a 3.0 next term then I will be accepted in to PSU's school of business (even if I don't there are waivers). I am excited. I am projecting a graduation date of spring 2013. My ten year anniversary of high school graduation.
You missed the point Toejamm, the law is already not being upheld in this case. It is now illegal to continue to implement the new health care law due to the Judges ruling and the White House has decided to continue to implement it. They didn't even respond to the Judge's order they ignored it until recently. From my understanding of what I have read, I am not an expert on legal matters, the law is being ignored and not respected in this instance by the Obama White house: "they begin by circumventing or disregarding in individual cases a principle which they often would wish to see preserved in general" as Hayek noted.
ReplyDeleteA startling fact that I came across is that government handouts make up 1/3 of US wages. So 1/3 of all US wages come from the government now. I for one am part of the problem. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41969508
"Government payouts—including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance—make up more than a third of total wages and salaries of the U.S. population, a record figure that will only increase if action isn’t taken before the majority of Baby Boomers enter retirement."[...]Even as the economy has recovered, social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
“'The U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus,' said Madeline Schnapp, director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs, in a note to clients. 'Consumption supported by wages and salaries is a much stronger foundation for economic growth than consumption based on social welfare benefits.'"
A 4.0 term is good. But take a real class like calculus or a math based science class to see if you are really 4.0 material. And don't get lulled into a sense of complancy by getting a 4.0 at a community college in easy classes. You will have to work much much harder at PSU, especially if you take some "real" classes. Hopefully, the economy will be better by 2013 and you will find a good job worthy of your degree.
There were two courts that held it constitutional as well. It is not illegal until it has reached its highest point of appeals. Which will most likely end up in the supreme court. Just because one judge deemed it illegal, doesn't make it law.
ReplyDeleteI will work my way up in difficulty. I have taken several 200 level courses and my math class is fairly difficult(MTH243 Prob/stats). It is impossible to take hard classes until prerequisites are met. Perhaps your classes are difficult for you because you didn't build up the proper foundation of knowledge. I suggest you take easier classes at first. It seems that your classes have given you a tough perspective on the difficulty of classes. Maybe you bit off more than you can chew. You could probably pay more attention in your schools orientation to grasp these concepts.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that just because this one judge declared the new health care unconstitutional does not make that the case until the supreme court rule it so?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell, the Obama Administration is working within the parameters of the court system. Obama is a lawyer and a politician. While it may not be ethical, it is effective. The Appelate courts haven't even reviewed the case. The case is not even close to being done with its appeals. Obamacare will be shoved down our throats for a while until it officially dies. While we may hate and despise the Administration for this, it is very common practice. It just stings a little more because of the magnitude of the case and the amount that we hate it.
ReplyDeleteWhen the judge declared the new health care law unconstitutional with respect to the 26 states that this case involves, it is unconstitutional until it makes it to the supreme court and they say otherwise. It is illegal to continue to implement the law with respect to the 26 states that this case involves regardless what other courts of the same or lesser level have said. The adminstration has basically gave the middle finger to the judge and said they will continue to implement it. If the adminstation were following the law, they would have respected the judge's ruling which is a "functional equivalent of an injunction" and stop implementing the law until it made it to the supreme court. Like I said, I do not read John Gresham novels and I am not a legal expert. I do not know how many President's have ignored a court order.
ReplyDeleteTo ingnore an injunction, which is what this rulling amounts to, "A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions. In some cases, breaches of injunctions are considered serious criminal offenses that merit arrest and possible prison sentences." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction