The Next ACA Case.

[Farnhamia]

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe has identified the next great legal challenge to ObamaCare.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/07/18/death-blow-for-obamacare/ilXv6eZOTsQoBzw0vGzq1I/story.html

Earlier this week, two different U.S. District Courts gave two different rulings on the Federal government's ability to operate healthcare insurance exchanges in states that have opted out of running an exchange under the Afordable Care Act.

You'd think that a law written on over 2000 pages would be "comprehensive" enough to figure out what's to be done in case some of the states found a way to opt out.

I realize that the ACA has a great many proponents who believe that the legislation ought not be challenged because of the good intent of the persons who voted for it, but would you rather have laws that mean what has been written or should a law be able to mean whatever the power-in-charge believes a law means?

Yeah, we know.

[JesusOfNazareth]

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe has identified the next great legal challenge to ObamaCare.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/07/18/death-blow-for-obamacare/ilXv6eZOTsQoBzw0vGzq1I/story.html

Earlier this week, two different U.S. District Courts gave two different rulings on the Federal government's ability to operate healthcare insurance exchanges in states that have opted out of running an exchange under the Afordable Care Act.

You'd think that a law written on over 2000 pages would be "comprehensive" enough to figure out what's to be done in case some of the states found a way to opt out.

I realize that the ACA has a great many proponents who believe that the legislation ought not be challenged because of the good intent of the persons who voted for it, but would you rather have laws that mean what has been written or should a law be able to mean whatever the power-in-charge believes a law means?

Yeah, we know.

Sorry.

[Benuty]

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe has identified the next great legal challenge to ObamaCare.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/07/18/death-blow-for-obamacare/ilXv6eZOTsQoBzw0vGzq1I/story.html

Earlier this week, two different U.S. District Courts gave two different rulings on the Federal government's ability to operate healthcare insurance exchanges in states that have opted out of running an exchange under the Afordable Care Act.

You'd think that a law written on over 2000 pages would be "comprehensive" enough to figure out what's to be done in case some of the states found a way to opt out.

I realize that the ACA has a great many proponents who believe that the legislation ought not be challenged because of the good intent of the persons who voted for it, but would you rather have laws that mean what has been written or should a law be able to mean whatever the power-in-charge believes a law means?

Yeah, we know.

You are clearly a liar .

[Christian Democrats]

This will certainly be an interesting case since congressional Democrats screwed up their wording in Obamacare.

A taxpayer shall receive a health insurance subsidy if "the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent of the taxpayer is covered by a qualified health plan . . . that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

Section 1311 of the ACA says, "Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an 'Exchange') for the State."

Section 1321 of the ACA says, if a State fails to create an Exchange (i.e., most states), "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements."

In short, is an Exchange established for a State by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Section 1321 of Obamacare "an Exchange established by the State under section 1311" of Obamacare? I think the clear answer is "no."

As Judge Randolph says in his concurring opinion:

Justice Brandeis' opinion for the Supreme Court in Iselin v. United States is controlling: "What the government asks is not a construction of a statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function." 270 U.S. 245, 251 (1926).

The text of the ACA is clear, but left-wing judges want to rule based on the intent of the ACA to make health coverage available at low costs to everyone even though there is a clear difference between the numbers 1311 and 1321.