Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Durbin: Obama Administration Should Enforce Obamacare Even Though Judge Ruled It Unconstitutional
CNS News ^ | Febriaru 3. 2011 | Nicholas Ballasy

Posted on 02/03/2011 10:29:26 PM PST by Citizen X_Area 51

Following a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the new health care law, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told CNSNews.com that the Obama administration should continue enforcing the health care law despite federal judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that it is unconstitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: durbin; healthcare; judgevinson; obama; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last
To: Citizen X_Area 51

To impose and enforce a law that has been declared illegal by a legitimate court is to establish a dictatorship.


81 posted on 02/04/2011 5:35:35 AM PST by BuffaloJack (Re-Elect President Sarah Palin 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weird Tolkienish Figure
So you’d have a government where every officer has to decide constitutionality?

Of course.

You'd have a government where only a few unelected judges get to determine what the oath means?

Frankly, that's exactly what you have now, which is exactly why we're in the trouble we're in.

82 posted on 02/04/2011 5:37:55 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Is a child a person? Of course. Which is why we MUST ban abortion NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
To impose and enforce a law that has been declared illegal by a legitimate court is to establish a dictatorship.

It depends. On whether said ruling was right or wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional. Legal in the strictest sense, or illegal.

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.'"

-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail


83 posted on 02/04/2011 5:42:39 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Is a child a person? Of course. Which is why we MUST ban abortion NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Citizen X_Area 51

The potential here ..is what the Obama administration and the Left see as opportunity.

The opportunity is to criminalize political difference of opinion. They spent the Bush 43 years talking about that opportunity. Nobody on the right wants to listen..because they frankly can’t believe it.

This, BTW, is where the UN is trying to go as well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/

We are in mortal danger...and this issue, Criminalization of difference of opinion, is the nexus between the left and Islam.


84 posted on 02/04/2011 5:42:50 AM PST by mo ("If you understand, no explanation is needed; if you do not, no explanation is possible")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

We have a system where law is determined by judicial officials, not by individuals, otherwise there’d be tremendous potential for not just anarchy, but abuse. I’m not so much concerned about pro-freedom decisions but anti-freedom law, like Obummer’s.

If Obama is going against the court, I say start the impeachment proceedings.


85 posted on 02/04/2011 5:47:08 AM PST by Weird Tolkienish Figure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Weird Tolkienish Figure

To come to the conclusion that you have,

you have to, like leftists do, reject the idea of

objective truth and objective rules.

Only those issues where the Constitution, and the original writings of the founders, are not addressed are “up for interpretation”. Everything else should be referred to as THE meaning. The original meaning is the only meaning, subject to amendment through the amendment process.


86 posted on 02/04/2011 5:47:50 AM PST by MrB (Tagline suspended for important announcement on my about page. Click my handle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
If this is lost in SCOTUS, then we are truly truly done as a nation. Just imagine what the Feds can force you to purchase from the private sector.

Let me just say this: if Obama and the Democrats continue implementation, and this is lost in SCOTUS, I FEAR FOR MY COUNTRY. At a minimum, I predict Washington will burn and states will deport Federal officials from within their borders. At a minimum. If SCOTUS turns down the will of the people, we may be looking at full-blown civil war.

87 posted on 02/04/2011 5:51:10 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Weird Tolkienish Figure
It isn't whether or not Obama, or anyone else, is going against the court. It's whether or not they're going against the Constitution.

We have a system where law is determined by judicial officials

That's not what the Constitution says.

Constitutionally, judges can only rule in individual cases that are before them. And their rulings only reach as far as the parties involved. They don't make laws. That is the prerogative of the legislative branch. They can't veto laws. That is the sole prerogative of the executive branch. And they can't write or amend Constitutions. That is the prerogative of the people.

88 posted on 02/04/2011 5:52:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Is a child a person? Of course. Which is why we MUST ban abortion NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The discussion with “weird” reminds me of discussions with a libinlaw about “right and wrong” issues.

I refer to the Bible as the objective source for determining right and wrong, she thinks it’s a matter of individual interpretation, and insists that it’s my opinion that I’m asserting.

She’s “grounded” [with her feet firmly planted in mid-air] in relativism,
and I assume objective absolutes.
When I refer to an objective absolute, she insists that it’s my opinion. And round and round we go.


89 posted on 02/04/2011 5:57:17 AM PST by MrB (Tagline suspended for important announcement on my about page. Click my handle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: MrB

There you go.


90 posted on 02/04/2011 5:58:29 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Is a child a person? Of course. Which is why we MUST ban abortion NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yes you’re right, I meant interpreted.

Welp, I don’t really want to have this debate right now, I just hope we can agree that Obama should be impeached if he continues?


91 posted on 02/04/2011 6:03:01 AM PST by Weird Tolkienish Figure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Weird Tolkienish Figure

From your screen name can we assume you’re actually a Tolkien fan?

Let’s assume you are for a moment.

When Denethor finally lost it and was about to burn Faramir alive, should Beregond have left his post to defend the intended victim, as the strict “law” forbid that he do?

When those in authority exceed their authority, and become in effect a law unto themselves, do not others have an obligation to stand against them, using the force that is within their control?

Is their oath to the authority of the officer above them, or to God-ordained principles of natural right?


92 posted on 02/04/2011 6:05:00 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Is a child a person? Of course. Which is why we MUST ban abortion NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Citizen X_Area 51
I am not a lawyer, but I am wondering if this isn't a criminal act, things like conspiracy to commit a crime (i.e., defying a judicial order), suborning a criminal act, things like that. Durbin is a US Senator. That carries considerable influence. Federal bureaucrats would likely be inclined to follow his orders, even in defiance of a court order. Durbin would therefore be guilty of using the power of his office to induce others to commit a crime. Somehow, that would seem actionable.
93 posted on 02/04/2011 6:07:43 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I’m actually not a Tolkien fan, lol. Just answer my question about Obama and impeachment.


94 posted on 02/04/2011 6:08:22 AM PST by Weird Tolkienish Figure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Weird Tolkienish Figure

If Obama exceeds his authority, and/or breaches the obligations of the oath of office, of course he should be impeached.


95 posted on 02/04/2011 6:17:01 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Is a child a person? Of course. Which is why we MUST ban abortion NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The mere suggestion that the court is the sole arbiter of constitutionality makes a mockery of the oath of office of every other officer of government, in every other branch.

Hear here!

Well said and VERY true!

96 posted on 02/04/2011 6:21:04 AM PST by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Citizen X_Area 51
If there is a legal-eagle following this thread I would like to know if Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to Judge Vinson's ruling.

If so then the ruling is, in effect, stayed for 14 days before the judgement can be executed. At least that's my reading. If this is the case then the Obama Administration can ignore the ruling for two weeks. After that they have to file an appeal and ask the Appeals Court to stay the ruling.

Here is the applicable part of Rule 62:

FRCB Rule 62

Stay of Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment

(a) Automatic Stay; Exceptions for Injunctions, Receiverships, and Patent Accountings.

Except as stated in this rule, no execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 14 days have passed after its entry.

97 posted on 02/04/2011 6:26:57 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigun

I’ll tell you, my friend, only by getting a grip on this very thing can the country be salvaged. I really believe that. This is the key.


98 posted on 02/04/2011 6:28:14 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Is a child a person? Of course. Which is why we MUST ban abortion NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Constitutionally, judges can only rule in individual cases that are before them. And their rulings only reach as far as the parties involved.

Let me suggest that you read the 7th Amendment to the Constitution. The words "common law" have significant meaning.

99 posted on 02/04/2011 6:29:40 AM PST by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

And still, the judge’s authority only extends to the matters before him. No one says that in making that decision no reference can be made to precedent, or to the common law. Or that other judges can’t reference his decision in this particular case in the future.

But you know as well as I do that the application of precedent in the real world is arbitrary and capricious. When they want to apply it, they do. When they don’t want to, they don’t.

Or, maybe I’m missing your point. Correct me if I am, please.


100 posted on 02/04/2011 6:36:30 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Is a child a person? Of course. Which is why we MUST ban abortion NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-134 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson