Posted on 01/31/2011 2:14:49 PM PST by jazusamo
In a challenge by 26 states, Vinson ruled that "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void." Vinson did not issue an injunction to block ObamaCare.
Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived. By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect).
In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.
...I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.
"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. "
Their carefully built facade is crumbling.
Yay.
"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. "
Smiling.
Let’s not celebrate prematurely on this.
All Vinson’s ruling does is even the score 2-2 (judges in VA and MI have upheld the law).
We need to get the case in front of the SCOTUS NOW and not drag it through the appeals process, as the ‘Rats want to do.
I would say this is a Constitutional ruling. Aren’t all rulings suppose to be Constitutional?
All meaningless.
There was never any question evne before it became law that it was not Constitutional.
They passed it anyhow. Its now a Government program and once a program is started they are inpossible to stop and Obama does not give a crap about the Constitution.
That part gives me some pause.
Absolutely agree.
Also, Reid has to be pressured for the repeal vote in the Senate, it was earlier stated all Republicans are on board for repeal. It’s a long shot but they just might pick up enough Dems to do it.
That’s got to hurt. It’s a real kick to the tail of the collectivists.
Key word there “supposed” to be. Doesn’t happen very often anymore.
so,can the senate get enough votes to rewrite the law with a severance code ? no...plus it wouldn’t pass in the house anyway.
re: SCOTUS - kagan will probably have to recuse herself...it all boils down to kennedy.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
HOORAY! No more waivers for favors!
This could also give the House committees a basis for investigations, subpoenas and testimony under oath of Obama czars, political functionaries, and also the Union and corporate officials who negotiated for the waivers already given.
Yes, it would seem legislators could take that to mean many things.
All Vinson’s ruling does is even the score 2-2 (judges in VA and MI have upheld the law).
We need to get the case in front of the SCOTUS NOW and not drag it through the appeals process, as the ‘Rats want to do.
Actually, its not to the Democrats benefit to have this thing drag out. There is an election in 2012 and they have 23 Senators (all who voted for the bill) and the president (who signed the bill) up for re-election. The bill is highly unpopular and by election day will be unconstitutional pending SCOTUS review. I don't think Democrats want to run for re-election under that circumstance.
They would be wise to not appeal the judge's ruling and then bring the whole issue back into the political arena where they can ask Republicans to draw up their healthcare bill, attack that proposal as being insufficient and then run an election in 2012 on that issue.
Remember, Democrats lost the 2010 election and want to try to get back the House of Representatives. That may be more important to them than this bill.
Because you haven't ever heard of that happening doesn't mean it doesn't go on.
Senator Leahy, in fact, committed an act of genocide against a million people in Viet Nam by voting to discontinue funding for the South Vietnam military. Other Senators and Congressmen committed a similar act against Cambodian people by cutting off funding for the Cambodian (allied) army at a critical moment.
Obamakkkare can be killed as readily as 2.5 million Cambodians or a 1.0 million Vietnamese.
If you don't believe me ask old blood and guts Leahy.
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.