Case Study: Line Item Veto Act

The concept of providing basic healthcare services to individuals in need has undergone an agonizing transition, from a luxury once only afforded by the affluent to a basic human right granted to citizens of every economic station, and the recently enacted Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to finalize this ethical evolution. Reflecting perhaps the bitter political enmity currently consuming the nation's once cherished democratic process, Republican legislatures in states throughout the union have bristled at the ACA's primary provisions, threatening all manner of procedural protestation as they attempt to delay and derail the bill's eventual implementation. One of the most intriguing aspects of the sprawling, thousand page law, however, has been the stipulation that individual states will be given a choice to either accept federal funding to expand their statewide Medicaid roster, or to forfeit all federal funding for that program in perpetuity. The role of government in monitoring and regulating the healthcare industry has been long debated, and the bitterly contested passage of President Obama's ACA, a law aimed at revising the country's health insurance system through the creating of a federal health insurance exchange to facilitate increased competition among insurers, has rekindled the debate over who holds the ultimate responsibility for regulating the care provided by hospitals, community clinics, and private practices.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

With his opinion is NFIB v. Sebelius, Roberts established precedential value for this case. It is now regarded as an example to be considered in the subsequent similar cases. Justice Ginsburg said in her opinion that “until today, this Courts Pragmatic approach to judging whether Congress validly exercised its commerce

As a Canadian in today’s society we believe we have a certain set of inalienable rights. One of those rights that seem to be at the forefront of the 2015 Canadian election is privacy. As Dr. Kent Roach and Dr. Craig Forcese state, “privacy is, in our society, the right to be left alone by the state.” The Conservative upbringing of Bill C-51 challenges the ideology around our right to be private, as well as our government’s role in the protection of Canada from threats of terrorism. The Harper government essentially, will increase their role in national security to keep a constant watchful eye on potentially harmful situations and end them before anyone is hurt or killed. If passed, the bill would allow the government to arrest anyone suspected of terrorism without that person even committing a crime. Furthermore, the language used in the bill is extremely vague and makes one question, where the line will be drawn? Will our basic rights to peaceful protest and free speech be affected? Unfortunately perhaps they will. One of the most concerning parts of the bill in regard to privacy is the fact that the government will now be able to access several sensitive documents about citizens from top agencies such as the Public Health Agency, Canadian Border Services Agency as well as the Canadian Border Services Agency. Privacy is changing in Canada. This is a landmark bill and as such it is creating quite a splash in the ongoing Canadian Election.

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

In 1995, a case went to the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionalism of an act passed by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause. The respondent, Alfonso Lopez, Jr. had appealed his case up from his district court in San Antonio all the way to the Supreme Court. The process took almost three whole years. Lopez had been charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 that was passed by Congress through the Commerce Clause. Lopez’s lawyer argued that the Congress did not have any constitutional power through its Commerce Clause to pass the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act in 1990. The case was viewed and decided by nine Supreme Court justices. In the Supreme Court case, United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court justices held that Congress’s control over and through the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. Their votes were 5 to 4. This was the first Supreme Court decision in over half a decade to limit the power of Congress.

Before I can appropriately discuss the opinion given by the US Supreme Court Justices; I feel that at first I must explain the background of what happened and the question that was brought before the justices of the US Supreme Court and the facts of the case. During this paper I will try to give some background information as well as the various opinions related to this issue. I will attempt to analyze and discuss the overall final outcome as issued by the courts in 1995.

The Medicaid revisions and expansion under the ACA, exhibited the federal government overstepping their power as they tried to penalize any state governments in opposition of the expansion, consequently, taking away states’ power. The Medicaid Expansion Mandate would’ve compelled states to join due to the loss of federal funding towards Medicaid if they did not adhere to (Phi Le, par.40). The Supreme Court hearing allowed states to have a choice whether or not to participate in the expansion without a total loss of their Medicaid funding. In return, states who didn't participate wouldn’t receive additional funding that coupled with this mandate that required inclusion, extending coverage of those who were at “Income below or ar 133% federal

This was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which

The “Rehabilitation Movement” in the 1940’s through the 1960’s was fully active. The war brought on allot to the OT’S. The demand of Occupational Therapists got higher due to war. With the war and those people who got injured, more and more people need to have an OT. At that point OT’s weren’t just helping people who were mentally ill, but they began helping people with physical disabilities that they got while in war. So instead of just working with people who were mentally ill and the injured war veterans, OT’s were having to take up responsibility and treat a huge number of people who survived “modern medicine’s miracles.” At that point OT’S had to treat physical disabilities at a faster speed with the aforementioned, along with the

The infamous presidential veto power is an example of a“reactive” (Carey, 2) power gifted to the president. When—and if— Congress finally agree and pass a piece of legislation through their retrospective chambers, the president has the power to veto it and render it invalid. The constitution outlines this power in Article I, Section 8. The use of the presidential veto is the most significant authority to prevent legislation from passing. On the other hand, Congress has the opportunity to overturn a presidential veto.

Healthcare is a single largest industry in the U.S. today. Healthcare is always on the frontline when it comes to technology and is always changing to improve healthcare and patient care. New York is one of states that have lost a lot of revenue due to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. Medicare is set to pay a percentage of what they want according to their regulations. Medicare and Medicaid is percentage varies depending on the state in which you reside. New York has lost come from the managed care discounts plans. New York has lost around 678 million dollars in revenue between 1998 and 1999. Balanced Budget Act, was signed by Bill Clinton in 1997 for low-income individuals mostly children. Balanced Budget Act was nearly 13 billion dollars to be used for welfare reform legislation. In addition to the 13 million dollars, there was another $600 million for children with diabetes.

In regards to the court ruling in favor of the President, they found that “By the plainest implication it excludes congressional dealing with the appointments or removals of executive officers not falling within the exception and leaves unaffected the executive power of the President to appoint and remove

(1) Constitutional Question: Is the Line Item Veto Act, giving the president the ability to remove certain parts of a law in benefit of the county, in violation of the Presentment Clause, Separation of Powers, Section 7, Article 1?

The congress can override a veto by the president in various cases and especially in national interests. The presidents was trying to maintain foreign relations and the lack of lawsuits against countries. Such laws suits according to the president can backfire on the United States especially from activities done in other countries. To check the presidents reach the congress passed the law especially whey putting in mind the interests of the September 9, 11 attacks who have waited for a long time to obtain justice. In using the checks and balances, the congress passed a law that would help families in this regard to sue the supposed sponsors of the attacks or the Saudi kingdom as a