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

To: Marty62

His ruling says it is because the Federal Government is expected to abide by the decision and historically no injunction has been necessary.


334 posted on 01/31/2011 2:26:30 PM PST by rwrcpa1 (Let freedom ring!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: rwrcpa1

See # 326;

he White House is making the claim that the law falls under the “Individual Responsibility” clause and therefore has Constitutional Authority.

Don’t think for a minute, that several hundred of those Lawyers in Congress who wrote this did not cover their asses. They already had a contingency plan if it encountered opposition. Of course, they knew it would.


339 posted on 01/31/2011 2:33:38 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (Patriotic by Proxy! (Cause I'm a nutcase and it's someone Else's' fault!....))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies ]

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