In Mr. Skittle's world it's all unicorns, rainbows and sunshine.
Posted on 12/13/2010 9:21:01 AM PST by careyb
Just in... will keep you posted...
But the lack of a severability clause wouldn’t necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing — the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority — and isn’t wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Court’s approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand.
Thank You, Lord.
The angel still rides in this whirlwind, and for that we are grateful.
Or the same is done to Obozo
***I think I will temper my enthusiasm until the bill is totally repealed, shredded, burned, and the ashes shot into space towards the sun.***
I will settle for the SCOTUS shoving this travesty up Obama’s U NO WHERE.
Legislators would not call it a tax. Now, it can be argued as a tax.
But the version passed and signed came from the Senate. So, if it is a tax, then the law must start in the House - so it is unconstitutional that way also.
It probably doesn’t even have to be written. If there was an exception, it would have to be in writing.
Striking this horrible bill down will provide a major economic stimulus!!!!
They must get rid of all of the mandates (especially the till age 26 and the manditory coverage of pre-existing).
Cuccinelli for president!!!
He’s young, good looking, dynamic, conservative, intelligent and a winner!!!
Actually, the bill was House Resolution 3590, sponsored by the Honorable Charles Rangel. The House bill was originally called "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009," but was amended in the Senate to strip out the original resolution and replace it with what became "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
See Bill Text Versions 111th Congress (2009-2010) H.R.3590
-PJ
From THE WASHINGTON COMPOST:
The Virginia suit would ordinarily next be heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Cuccinelli has indicated, however, that he would like to bypass the appeals court and move directly to the Supreme Court, an extraordinary legal maneuver that would require the high court to decide that the case held extreme public importance and intervene immediately.Gotta wonder if the second paragraph is a bit of theater. Odinga and fellow Dhimmitards would like nothing better than for confusion to reign.
He has asked the White House to sign on to the request, arguing they, too, would benefit from a quick resolution to legal questions surrounding the law. However, it is not clear whether the White House will agree.
>>What would Biden say?<<
He woudl say Lincoln fought bravely in WWI.
Not that that is relevant. ;)
Ping to info about severability clause.
As we celebrate, however, bear in mind that there is danger in beating back Obamacare through the courts. If Obama had an IQ anywhere in the normal range he would be able to seize on this ruling as an opportunity to retreat gracefully from his health care debacle. He could work with the new Congress to replace Obamacare with something the public might like and pave the way for a successful reelection campaign. I'm betting he's too inflexible and too stupid for that, but still, the danger is there.
See my post 149.
-PJ
I’m with you. The biggest thing is getting rid of Obama and all his Dem puppeteers and regain the Senate, the House and the Whitehouse.
In Mr. Skittle's world it's all unicorns, rainbows and sunshine.
Unfortunately, there are hundreds of other provisions that give the bill has that give the federal government far too much power over our lives. Provisions that give the feds the power to decide what type of insurance must be offered by your employer.
That is correct.
This is wonderful.
Some people have claimed the severability clause is absent from Obamacare because the writing process of the bill was such a cluster, the clause was just forgotten. But the reality, I’m told, is that a severability clause would’ve been added in conference between the House and Senate. Except that as you know, no such conference happened — everything had to be done via reconciliation after the House passed the Senate bill. Hence, no severability clause.
Obamacare may turn out to be the progressive Picket’s charge
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I like that sentence...can I borrow it??? :)
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.