Posted on 09/08/2011 12:13:39 PM PDT by CitizenM
Federal appeals court on Thursday rejected Virginia's challenge to President Obama's health care law, saying in a ruling that the state doesn't have a right to bring a lawsuit.
The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court's decision to declare the law unconstitutional and is the second appellate court ruling in favor of the government's right to require individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
But the court on Thursday stopped short of ruling whether the individual mandate in the health care law is constitutional; it strictly examined Virginia's right to sue.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/08/appeals-court-dismisses-virginias-challenge-to-obamacare/#ixzz1XOEwSryw
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So they reversed, not dismissed but didn’t reach the merits.
I figured that the article had it wrong.
I hope VA requests rehearing en banc. Wasn’t the basis for their suit a state law? They would have standing if that’s the case.
As most people do, you are misreading the Supremacy Clause. Here it is, with they key phrase that reverses the meaning from what you think it is in italics:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ['thereof' refers to the Constitution]; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Unconstitutional laws are emphatically not "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution. And that's the whole point at issue in this case.
It is logically and legally invalid to simply assume the truth of a disputed point (whether or not the law is Constitutional) to decide whether the State has standing. The Supremacy Clause can only be used to decide a legal issue once the determination has been made that the law in question is Constitutional (unless the Constitutionality of the law is not in dispute—which it is, in this case.)
I understand that and completely agree. What confuses me is the practical effect of today's ruling on our effort to get rid of Obama-non-care through the courts.
I'd guess… left-leaning in this instance.
Thank you, Tonytitan. The bottom line, then, is that a SCOTUS ruling upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare (shudder) does not make that law irrevocable. We trudge on.
Federal law trumps state law? If the state is to be the collector of a “mandate” premium, overseen by the IRS, the state has “standing”. But not, of course to a bunch of statist lib judges. This is not “rule of law” it is “interpretation of law” in favor of rule. VA, and many other states have standing, except to this bunch of jackasses.
If there is any more clear cut sign that our legislature needs to “repeal” obamacare? People will simply disobey the law. There are not enough IRS agents— we would need the new federal gestobambapo. Lovely.
Do believe there was a prior “discussion” on state’s rights that may need to be brought up again. Permanently, if anyone has the willpower.
“How is the 4th Circuit upholding the Virginia law outlawing enforcement of the individual mandate? I do not understand your reasoning. The fact is that the Virginia law is already unenforceable because it is trumped by Obama Care. The Constitution in the Supremacy Clause makes it clear that when a federal and state law directly conflict that the federal law trumps the state law and takes precedence.”
Well obviously you haven’t read the so called “supremacy clause” nor are you paying attention to the fact that they dismissed the case on the basis of grounds to sue.
That means in the opinion of the Federal Employees in black robes(An unending source of conflict of interest if ever there was one.) Virgina doesn’t have reason to sue.
Meaning its law must still be standing unchallenged. Otherwise Virgina would have reason to complain about a federal intrusting attempting to abolish their law.
I say again Ken send them letters of waring to the Federal IRS agents. Tell them if they attempt to assaults the rights of Virginians to healthcare self-determination they will be arrested and jailed!
“Also, Virginia cannot legally send the IRS a letter threatening them of jail time if they tried to enforce ObamaCare. The real world reality is that if any Virginia law enforcement agent tried to interfere with IRS agents discharging their federal duties the the VA law enforcement agents would end up being arrested by the feds and face federal prison time.”
Even the Federal Employees in black robes just declared that the Virgina law is still standing. Otherwise Virgina must have grounds to sue. The Federal Government own hand picked employees in blackrobes did not invalidate the Virgina law protecting the rights Virginia.
Any attempt by Federal IRS agents to enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate is an illegal usurpation of the rights of Virginians, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
If the Federal Government attempts to illegal interfere then those federal Agents must be arrested using whatever force necessary. I trust the State of Virgina has enough jail space to house them treasonous Federal agents.
If the hand picked Federal employees in black robes choose to ignore the Federal Constitution and expand their masters(and by extension their own) power into an infinite domain.
The Constitution would henceforth be made meaningless. Without a Constitution to provide any limits nor legitimacy the Federal Government’s power. As with any other tyranny their rule would be subject only to the power of their sword.
Well Ask them Why should we the people prefer this tyranny over any one else with a sword particular one promising to restore the limits of the Constitution?
Why should we defend a Government that subsist upon the sword? According to our forefather it was our duty to overthrow any such boundless goverment but as we are now too weak to do that, the least we can do is abstain from defending it.
In any even this particular dismissal by the hand picked Federal Employees in black robes was not an edict declaring Virgina’s law protecting the rights and liberties of the people of Virgina to be unconstitutional.
As such, even the hand picked Federal employee’s own otherwise self-serving opinion there is no conflict between the the Federal act usurping our rights and the State act preserving them.
That means in no uncertain terms that they must find the Federal act to not do them things which the State act prohibited. Otherwise they would have no choice but to convene a trial to rule the State act unconstitutional.
Virginians I urge you to press your advantage forward and send a letter of warning to the Federal IRS agents in your state. Warn them to respect your rights or else! Let Virgin’s noble and historic motto ring true again by signing each letter with it’s phrase: Sic semper tyrannis!
I agree with you that the term “pursuance” is the key. I totally understand that. I feel ObamaCare is unconstitutional and a perversion of the Commerce Clause.
The reality of the matter though is that the constitutionality of federal laws are decided in federal courts and not in state courts or by state level officials. I agree that the state of Virginia has an extremely valid argument that the mandate is unconstitutional but until the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate or Congress were to hypothetically repeal the mandate then the Supremacy Clause is for all legal purposes binding on the Virginia law.
The point that people are missing is that a law enacted by Congress does not have to pass scrutiny or be rubber stamped by the individual states as far as its Constitutionality in order for the federal statute to take effect. One of the justices basically made it clear that states cannot just make up laws to try to counter federal laws they do not like and then try to sue in federal court to basically validate their state law. Thus Virginia does not have standing to sue. The appeals panel made it clear that Virginia suffers no damage from the federal law so they have no standing. The appeals panel did not uphold the Virginia law but basically implied that the state itself has no standing to get involved with this issue.
The bottom line from a legal perspective is that the Virginia law is only symbolic in nature and is trumped by federal law. I don’t understand this notion that the appeals court left the state law still standing because they did not.
Sir, with all due respect Virginia cannot prosecute federal agents faithfully discharging their federal duties. In fact it is a federal crime to impede, interfere with or intimidate federal officials performing their official duties. (US title Code 11815) The federal government is a separate sovereign and it is and would be a criminal act if an agent of the state interfered with their lawful duties. In the real world it would be Virginia officials going to prison and not the feds.
The very reason VA sued was to try to get the federal judiciary to deem the mandate unconstitutional. Virginia knew that their law could not stop the federal government from enforcing the mandate. If let’s say hypothetically that the VA law could actually protect its citizens from the federal individual mandate then they would not have put up the resources or time to challenge the law in federal court to begin with or have a need to challenge the federal mandate in court.
As a point of argument, the only way the Appeals panel could decide against Virginia's standing is if they believe the penalty to be a tax.
If it's a tax it can be disposed of a bit easier than the rest of it.
Remember, with taxes you always have three choices ~ leave the rate alone, raise it, or lower it. You can set the rate at ZERO if you wish.
That's one of the risks of using tax law to create special funding conditions ~ somebody who doesn't like your project can cut off your money simply by "starving the beast".
One last thing is that the parts of the Virginia law that do not conflict with the federal law still would remain. It is just that the key portion of the Virginia law that conflicts with the federal mandate is basically voided and unenforceable due to being trumped by the federal law. So the net sum of the matter is that Virginians despite their state law still have to abide by Obama Care. But in the end everything will be simplified when this matter goes before the Supreme Court. Let’s just hope they deem the mandate unconstitutional!
Typical Federal arrogance.
I don’t give a rats about what “laws” congress thinks it has passed. Nor do I really care about the opinion their hand picked employees regarding the limits of their own power.
None of that for obvious reasons is of any legitimate consequence. Ultimately of course this all comes down to thugs with guns. That means our contest is not a matter of words(they listen to no one), but instead one of war, guile, cunning, and ultimately superior force.
Our political maneuvering against this tyrant should as such be to weaken and cripple it so that we may more easily overthrow its evil.
This can be done on the ground as a piratical measure to enforce the HONEST limits of the Federal Constitution, or it can be done via the more long term rout of helping to bring about the compete collapse of the imperial Federal Government. The question of path is indeed a question of feasibility and political reality.
One way or the other victory and the reclamation of our natural rights is achievable. We will not be made subject to this tyranny forever.
So let the Federal employees in black-robes be put on notice, even thou they are not subject to election, their power still exist at our discretion.
“The very reason VA sued was to try to get the federal judiciary to deem the mandate unconstitutional. Virginia knew that their law could not stop the federal government from enforcing the mandate. If let’s say hypothetically that the VA law could actually protect its citizens from the federal individual mandate then they would not have put up the resources or time to challenge the law in federal court to begin with or have a need to challenge the federal mandate in court.”
If that is true, then there is no hope to save nether our republic nor our freedom.
No Constitution of civil Government can ever long stand upon the mere discretion of that same Government’s power-welding leaders. Indeed such a Government is at best a boundless democracy, and inevitably in time an ever more despotic oligarchy.
You better hope your wrong, cause if your not there can be no peaceful resolution to our evermore pressing problem.
“The decision here does not impact issues of the law’s constitutionality, but only the issue of a state not being the harmed party in the arguement as to an individual mandate. The other actions that do include individuals as the plaintifs are not impacted by this ruling IMHO.”
Well stated, worthy of repeating...thanks!
Bump
I agree 100%. It’s a regulation of interstate commerce, if anything, and inactivity is NOT commerce. Therefore it’s unconstitutional. However, the Left is going to do all they can to spin it as a tax and the ultimately result- if successful- is to make it infinitely more difficult to challenge.
I agree 100%. It’s a regulation of interstate commerce, if anything, and inactivity is NOT commerce. Therefore it’s unconstitutional. However, the Left is going to do all they can to spin it as a tax and the ultimately result- if successful- is to make it infinitely more difficult to challenge.
They cannot have it both ways, its a tax, its not a tax depending on which way the winds blowing.
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.