“Only in the 26 states. Chris Christie can’t say the ruling will help New Jersey even though he didn’t submit a brief?”
I’m not sure I understand. If you’re asking me if we would have a federal law that only affects 26 states, the answer is no. Example: a federal law that mandates all working citizens contribute to SDI taxes applies to all 50 states and the US territories (and some US citizens that work outside the US). You’ve asked a question that requires a very messy answer to cover all the bases. The short answer is no. The feds can’t mandate only some states and some US citizens comply with Obamacare (remember, some of the plaintiffs in this case are private citizens, insurance companies, as well as state governors). One state involved is Michigan. The Michigan state appeals court has ruled that parts of Obamacare ARE constitutional. This is a procedural mess, but the Justice Department has to use the Florida case to get this resolved in the USSC. That’s not what they wanted. They would have preferred the Michigan case b/c they won that appeal. The USSC can take both the Michigan case and the Florida case into account to resolve conflicting Circuit court rulings. No matter what, the Justice Department is “married” to their argument that Congress passed Obamacare on the premise it is a tax and not based on the Commerce Clause. The JD just can’t explain that away. Sorry I couldn’t give you a clean easy answer. :(
26 states were parties to the suits which means the ruling is applicable to all 26 states, weather or not they are in his “district” or not.
All that being said i find the judges addition in telling our States to continue to implement this “law” for the next 7 days reprehensible.
If the Federal courts are the masters of the Federal Constitution then there is no and can never be any Federal Constitution. Merely the arbitrary discretion of the Federal Government. Which would make us no different then the United Kingdom, who is without a real Constitution.