Posted on 12/13/2010 11:36:01 AM PST by neverdem
“ruled that the unconstitutional parts of it could be severed from the whole. “
I thought the legislation had to have a severability clause to accomplish this and it’s my understanding that this legislation doesn’t have such a clause. Can anyone comment?
I wonder if the ruling can be extended to corporations?
Interesting decision.
It doesn’t have to specifically have a severability clause, but most laws of this magnitude do. With no clause it is up to the court to judge whether the bill can survive if the unconstitutional parts of it are severed. The court also looks at the intent of Congress in this analysis. However, in this case there is very little legislative history as Congress didn’t even read the bill and didn’t really talk about it in depth on the house or senate floors.
In the end, the SCOTUS will NOT sever the individual mandate from the rest of the bill...they will strike down the entire package because the individual mandate is the key component to the whole law. Not sure why Hudson didn’t see this.
I may not be going to jail after all.
I would say yes. A corporation can not force you to buy a product or service. And it sure as heck can’t force you to pay a fine if to do not buy their product or service.
“Not sure why Hudson didn’t see this.”
Well, at least we got a good ruling on the individual mandate. I find it absolutely unbelievable that ANYONE could think that forcing a citizen to purchase a product could be constitutional.
From Mark Levin!
From Landmark Legal Foundation on ObamaCare
Landmark Legal Foundation ^ | December 12, 2010 | Mark Levin
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2010 1:35:14 PM by La Lydia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2641973/posts
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.”
So if nobody is FORCED to buy into the ObamaKare plan, then it just becomes another voluntary health plan - with the majority of members being poor and/or sick.
So who the hell is gonna pay for the costs?! The taxpayer??
Finally a judge who actually applies the constitution to a ruling, rather than bending the law to meet a political agenda. The commerce clause is clear and as the judge states, in all previous SCOTUS and state decisions nowhere does the Commerce Clause extend the right to mandate a citizen purchase a good or service from a private company.
This sets the table for the unravelling of this incredible over reach of the federal government. Now maybe the entire bill is thrown into the garbage.
Why do I think the media will hide this story?
Breaking for like 16 threads and the last 2 hours?
=8-)
There are other ways to fund it. Of course, that would require the Republican majority in the House to agree with a HUGE increase in taxes across the board.
Ain’t gonna happen. Hudson wants it played out in the legislative branch where it started. I am not so sure SCOTUS doesn’t see it the same way. Faced with actually having to fund the OBAMACARE monstrosity in broad daylight, the House and Senate will throw in the towel.
Bout dang time!
He may have seen it, but refrained from going that far as he acknowledges it will go to SCOTUS. He may have the class to not presume to guide them.
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.