Posted on 02/01/2011 12:37:22 PM PST by DanMiller
Only one who simply doesn't care about individual rights could read Judge Vinson's decision and still believe the individual mandate is constitutional.
In a seventy-eight page order released on January 31, Judge Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, held the mandatory medical insurance provisions of ObamaCare unconstitutional as exceeding the powers of the federal government under the Commerce Clause. Finding the mandatory insurance provisions not severable from the remainder of ObamaCare, he declared it unconstitutional in its entirety and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant federal government.
In most respects, Judge Vinson’s opinion tracks that of Judge Hudson in the Virginia case finding that there is no basis in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution upon which to justify it. Unlike Judge Hudson, Judge Vinson held that the mandatory medical insurance requirements are the keystone of ObamaCare, needed to fund it. He did not consider it his prerogative to attempt to rewrite the legislation and hence held that the whole thing must fall.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
… the Act will have serious negative consequences, e.g., encouraging people to forgo health insurance until medical services are needed, increasing premiums and costs for everyone, and thereby bankrupting the health insurance industry. … Thus, rather than being used to implement or facilitate enforcement of the Act’s insurance industry reforms, the individual mandate is actually being used as the means to avoid the adverse consequences of the Act itself. Such an application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would have the perverse effect of enabling Congress to pass ill-conceived, or economically disruptive statutes, secure in the knowledge that the more dysfunctional the results of the statute are, the more essential or “necessary” the statutory fix would be. Under such a rationale, the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would, of course, expand the Necessary and Proper Clause far beyond its original meaning, and allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I. Surely this is not what the Founders anticipated, nor how that Clause should operate.This was pretty good as well:
As was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business. . . .
Describes the 32% of the electorate who consistently support any position aligned with communism.
Don’t get excited. Obamacare will be upheld in the Supreme Court.
Our conservative Chief Justice Roberts is also a mega-Federalist. He seems to vote in favor of Federal control.
So, unless the Senate votes for it, the House will have to defund.
No, it will not be upheld in the Supreme Court. Obamacare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
My state really came through in the last election!
(except of course my district who still has wazerman blech)
I fear that if we wait for SCOTUS to act, too much of the “kudzu” of Obamacare will have taken root.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/how-to-limit-the-damage-from-obamacare-pulling-it-out-weed-by-weed
Thus, nixing only the mandate and leaving the rest to stand might be the easiest course of action. This will be tempting to those who tend to defer to Congressional prerogatives and adverse to judicial activism.
Admittedly, the administration is SUPPOSED to halt implementation in its tracks, but who believes that will happen? I’m hoping their intransigence in refusing to acknowledge the authority of Judge Vinson’s opinion (read: obey the law), may be the final straw that compels the Senate to just repeal this turkey so we can get on with the business of crafting a workable alternative and not have to wait until 2012 or 2013 to start possibly at ground zero.
Shouldn’t be such a big deal for government officials including judges to keep their oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the U. S.
...would have the perverse effect of enabling Congress to pass ill-conceived, or economically disruptive statutes, secure in the knowledge that the more dysfunctional the results of the statute are, the more essential or “necessary” the statutory fix would be. Under such a rationale, the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
This is the Cloward-Priven strategy in a nutshell.
Yes, indeed. Marco Rubio and Allen West...stellar!
That was EXACTLY what I planned on doing...
I dont have health insurance now- because it went up to over 12 grand.,P> so for the last 2 years I have pocketed that.
And when Obammycare passed I made a decision I would wait until i needed it before I paid for it.
This is hugh and series. Until now, the Left detached the clause from the enumerated powers. It was illogically regarded as a freestanding clause, on its own, such that Congress could pass law it thought necessary and proper to do whatever it wanted.
By implication, Vinson returned the clause to the meaning as stated in the Constitution and understood by the ratifiers.
Oh, and the Tea Party reference was a stick in Hussein's eye.
I also fear what will happen between now and the eventual final adhudication. I would expect this administration to delay and appeal at the last possible moment, since they are not enjoined from installing portions of the law for now.
This from a judicial mega-brain LOL.
Should it stand the result eventualy will be national health insurance. It will be meager just as social security is. Who relies on it for their retirement? But it will pass and Repulicans will pass it. Mark my words.
Any Justice who votes this to be constitution should be impeached.
To read later.
Those are some great must read excerpts. Don’t you know they were read at the WH with much scoffing and arrogant derision. What a brilliant judge.
Why doesn’t his decision take effect immediately?
The truth is it has taken effect immediately and the effect is that the entire law is unconstitutional. When courts agree with the govt, the govt can proceed with the status quo. When the court disagrees and declares (declaratory judgment) that a statute is unconstitutional, the govt is duty bound to honor the Judiciary Branch decision and STOP implementing the law unless an appeal is taken and a stay is granted at the appellate level. Judge Vinson expects no less. Now, if Obama disregards and marches on, the Plaintiffs need to go back to the good Judge and ask him for a modification of his order to turn it into an injunction and issue the order with a contempt citation to govt counsel./p>
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.