Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Judge in Florida Rules Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional
Fox News Detroit ^ | 1-31-2011 | Fox News

Posted on 01/31/2011 12:06:59 PM PST by Marty62

Edited on 01/31/2011 12:19:03 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

Federal Judge in Florida Rules Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional

Updated: Monday, 31 Jan 2011, 3:07 PM EST
Published : Monday, 31 Jan 2011, 3:07 PM EST

(NewsCore) - A Florida federal judge ruled Monday in a 26-state challenge to the national health care law that the provision requiring individuals to purchase health insurance by 2014 or suffer a penalty is unconstitutional, Fox News Channel reported.

Excerpt, see myfoxdetroit



TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; fail; healthcare; healthcarelaw; judgevinson; obama; obamacare; obamacarefail; socializedmedicine; statesrights; teapartyrebellion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 381-395 next last
To: Gator113

Listening to Greta now.

LOL. Greta is practically calling the lawyers in congress *idiots*...LOL.


201 posted on 01/31/2011 1:06:54 PM PST by onyx (If you truly support Sarah Palin and want to be on her busy ping list, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: onyx
I'm reading the judge's opinion, and some things are starting to emerge:

Part 1 - Medical Expandsion. Looks like the state of Florida could have done a much better job on this part of the case -- the judge actually ruled in favor of HHS (Obama) for this portion of the case.

Part 2A - Individual Mandate (re: the Commerce Clause). This is hugh and series. Two individuals were cited as having sufficient standing to join the lawsuit. Utah and Idaho (at least) also have standing due to anti-Obamacare legislation passed in their respective states. No other states needed to be evaluated (by precedent).

The Judge spent a LOT of pages (~30) discussing the Commerce Clause, its history, case law, and then the possible scenarios. He's concerned over whether ANYTHING might be out of the reach of Congressional regulation if you accept the Gov'ts notion that even NOT participating in the health care industry constitutes "economic activity." Judge asserts that the act of not buying health insurance has ZERO impact on economic activity - unequivocally. The Gov't essentially claims that people inevitably get sick and access the health care system, and thus can be regulated. A liberal judge would no doubt concur with their view, but this judge did not.

Part 2B - the Necessary and Proper Clause. Judge rules that the Gov't overstepped its interpretation of this clause - that it means the Gov't has the power to carry out its mandates; NOT that it can do things outside its Constitutional mandates. Good.

In summary of Part 2 - the Gov't lost both parts 2A and 2B. Part 3 - Severability. Congress included no severability clause; judge interprets this as intentional and that the bill can't stand without the individual mandate. Ruling for the plaintiffs.

Finally - the injunction: because of the absence of severability and the declaration that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, this is IN EFFECT an injunction ruling.

202 posted on 01/31/2011 1:07:09 PM PST by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Marty62
You can read the Court's Opinion here:

UnConstitutional Law Passed by the Democratic Party, Obama Care

Download and read on your computer, it is 78 pages long.
203 posted on 01/31/2011 1:08:19 PM PST by Thanatos (With Liberals like we have, why have allies?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
Photobucket

This is my Happy Thought!
204 posted on 01/31/2011 1:08:38 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais is beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: onyx
His legacy lives on! God Bless President Ronald Reagan!


205 posted on 01/31/2011 1:08:41 PM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Cavuto is covering it now on FoxNews


206 posted on 01/31/2011 1:09:05 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Babalu
Shep is a wuss and a metrosexual punk.... I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he has the same name as one of the Three Stooges!

Actually, when Curly wasn't around, it was Shemp who joined Larry and Moe as the third Stooge. Maybe Shep took the "m" and used it for metrosexual. Although, calling him that gives him the benefit of the doubt. I think he's a full-fledged member of the other team.

207 posted on 01/31/2011 1:10:19 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (SOTU? How about STFU?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Mine too!!


208 posted on 01/31/2011 1:10:19 PM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: onyx

2,000 pages of legislation, no severability clause.

I love the stupidity of the Democrats. That’s what they get for ramming the bill down our throats.


209 posted on 01/31/2011 1:10:53 PM PST by NYRepublican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

Personally, I find it hilarious that for all of the stuff they packed into the monstrous bill, they neglected to include a severability clause, which is one of the most basic elements of a contract.


210 posted on 01/31/2011 1:11:18 PM PST by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1
...and guess what?....HE WAS WRONG!
...TWO were not Republican
211 posted on 01/31/2011 1:11:22 PM PST by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
More about the "non-injunction injunction", quoting the opinion (case law citations snipped):

"The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” ..., and “drastic” remedy.... It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption; that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.

"... There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."

212 posted on 01/31/2011 1:11:40 PM PST by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

Ha.


213 posted on 01/31/2011 1:12:08 PM PST by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

...through his appointee, Judge Vinson.

214 posted on 01/31/2011 1:12:20 PM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Thanks for the summary.


215 posted on 01/31/2011 1:12:33 PM PST by Clyde5445 (If you truly support Sarah Palin and want to be on her busy ping list, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: william clark
Personally, I find it hilarious that for all of the stuff they packed into the monstrous bill, they neglected to include a severability clause, which is one of the most basic elements of a contract.

We aren't talking about the best and the brightest here. We're talking about Democrats. 400,000 words, 2,000 pages -- no severability clause. Love it!

216 posted on 01/31/2011 1:13:09 PM PST by NYRepublican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: GRRRRR; Marty62

Guess they can use all those printed copies this winter to stave off the global warming chill.


217 posted on 01/31/2011 1:13:12 PM PST by SouthTexas (Is it time for tea yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

LOL! Yeah, my bad ... maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part. I didn’t mean to disparage poor Shemp (may he RIP)!


218 posted on 01/31/2011 1:14:09 PM PST by Babalu ("Tracer rounds work both ways ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Marty62

I wonder if the 0-boy still wants to continue the feckless exercise of identifying himself with Reagan, since RR’s appointee struck his most prized “accomplishment” down?


219 posted on 01/31/2011 1:14:09 PM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
I am thinkin that Obama is about to get some Cowbell today...

Walken Bitch Slap
220 posted on 01/31/2011 1:14:57 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais is beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 381-395 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson