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

To: smoothsailing

I’m confused: while the main body of the bill doesn’t go into effect until 2014, a whole bunch of stuff gets phased in before then — including a lot of taxes. If the “whole thing” is unconstitutional, then how come we couldn’t get an injunction on the pre-2014 provisions?


41 posted on 01/31/2011 12:14:31 PM PST by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: alancarp

There is a PRESIDENTIAL election in 2012.

IT NOW MEANS THAT ANY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE MUST SWEAR TO SIGN A REPEAL OF THE ENTIRE LAW.


67 posted on 01/31/2011 12:20:44 PM PST by Marty62 (Marty 60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: alancarp
I’m confused: while the main body of the bill doesn’t go into effect until 2014, a whole bunch of stuff gets phased in before then — including a lot of taxes. If the “whole thing” is unconstitutional, then how come we couldn’t get an injunction on the pre-2014 provisions?

Because, as far as I can tell, no one asked him to. I believe the requested injunction was specifically in reference to the individual mandate.

200 posted on 01/31/2011 1:06:48 PM PST by kevkrom (De-fund Obamacare in 2011, repeal in 2013!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: alancarp

yeah, like the stupid provision that won’t let people use their FSA accounts for non prescription medications without a prescription, and added taxes..... that went into effect this year.


237 posted on 01/31/2011 1:20:00 PM PST by Newton ('No arsenal is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.' -Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: alancarp
I’m confused: while the main body of the bill doesn’t go into effect until 2014, a whole bunch of stuff gets phased in before then — including a lot of taxes. If the “whole thing” is unconstitutional, then how come we couldn’t get an injunction on the pre-2014 provisions?

From the decision:

The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act . . . 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."

In other words, Judge Vinson's finding of unconstitutionality stops the whole thing in its tracks. If the Obama Administration attempts to continue to implement the Act (which can no longer be called a law, as it has been struck down in total by a Federal judge), then I would imagine the plaintiffs would go right back to Vinson who would at that point issue an injunction.

I would certainly think that any President who cavalierly ignores the lawful order of the Judicial Branch is just begging for impeachment proceedings in the House. Judge Vinson has just said that Obamacare is not a valid law. Therefore anybody, up to and including Barack H. Obama, who tries to implement it from today until at least an appeals court rules on Vinson's opinion is acting outside lawful authority.

If Obama wants this law to stand, he will have to play the game by the rules as they are, not how he wants the rules to be. That means he will have to obey Judge Vinson's order.

288 posted on 01/31/2011 1:47:18 PM PST by filbert (More filbert at http://www.medary.com--The Revolution Will Be Exit-Polled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | 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