Posted on 12/13/2010 10:35:14 AM PST by La Lydia
Today Federal District Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare:
1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise;
2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers;
3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.
Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama Administration and for the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still having meaning. Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several amicus briefs in this case, at the request of the Commonwealth, and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.
Landmark President Mark R. Levin declared: "It is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry. Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad, and General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this mater. We look forward to continuing to work with him."
If Congress brings this back up (fat chance) to change the label from penalty to tax, does that make it legal? I am reading a lot that says that if, by some freak accident, it went through and passed again in that reformed manner, then it would be Constitutional since Congress is the only body permitted to draft tax code. Any truth to this?
They’d have to get it done before Jan. 1 because after that, no way will they be able to.
I hope they throw the whole thing out and in 2012 we throw more members who voted for this OUT.
calling gravity a doorknob does not make gravity a doorknob
calling this provision a tax, penalty or a doorknob does not change the fact that it is a penalty
the law would have to be revamped so the tax is not imposed only on those that do not buy insurance
ObamaCare bill is 2,000 pages. I assume most of it is not affected by this ruling (e.g. racial profiling of doctors in still there in the bill).
I think Obama already poisoned that pool because he has referred to it both ways. But thank heavens we are safe, at least for the next two years.
Is it true that the idiots/lobbiests neglected to include a “severability clause” in the law; thereby (with this ruling) nullifying the entire piece of excrement?
Here we go again ...
“The Obama administration has vigorously defended the law and said that the state of Virginia did not have the legal standing to challenge it on behalf of its citizens, particularly for something that has yet to take effect.
The individual coverage mandate is a major component of the overhaul law, a bid by the Obama administration to expand coverage to the tens of millions of Americans who are without insurance and to thereby help lower exploding healthcare costs. “
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40642816
this bill had no severability clause - some say that means the entire bill is tossed out - some say the lack of a severability clause does not matter and only this provision is tossed
hope levin addresses this on his show tonight
some also say this ruling only applies to virginia
“ObamaCare bill is 2,000 pages. I assume most of it is not affected by this ruling (e.g. racial profiling of doctors in still there in the bill).”
My understanding is that they forgot to put a “severability” clause in the legislation. Therefore if a part of it is unconstitutional I think the whole thing might be. I know that’s true of contracts. One can only hope.
standing was already addressed and the judge said the state does have standing - this ruling was on the merits
“some also say this ruling only applies to virginia “
So US Constitution only applies to Virginia? This sounds like coming from NYC public school teachers. Seriously, I doubt this is an issue.
Lib background noise to distract from the fact that the American people won this round, at least.
rush should call levin and get him on his show - so many questions about this ruling
The lack of a severablity claus must have been intentional. Even the socialists knew that the legislation would not be workable without the individual mandate.
Virginia was the only state that is a party in this case. A judge in a trial court only has jurisdiction over the actual parties named.
Don’t read too much into the fact that this decision only applies to VA.
Not true — there is no severability clause in the Act, so if part fails, it all fails.
Exactly.
Understood, but 0 has the other side of the argument and will see that the judge is overruled on appeal.
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.