DEMINT STATEMENT ON FEDERAL COURT RULING OBAMACARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Cypress Times ^ | 12/13/10 | Jim DeMint

[pissant]

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint made the following statement after a federal judge ruled that the individual mandate in President Obama's health care takeover bill "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

"Today's decision makes it clear that President Obama and Democrats overreached and violated the Constitution in their rush to pass a federal takeover of our health care system. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made a compelling case that Obamacare violated the constitutional rights of Americans by forcing them into a government program against their will.

"The Constitution neither grants Congress nor the President the power to compel every American to buy government-approved health insurance. The unconstitutional individual mandate is the centerpiece of the health care takeover and today's ruling should signal the beginning of the end for Obamacare. Congress must listen to the American people and fully repeal Obamacare immediately. Then we can move to real solutions that make health care more affordable and increase choices that keep patients in control over their own care."

[Jim Robinson]

No crown, but I’d give him a cigar. He got it right, It’s not a tax and it is an unconstitutional mandate.

[Chunga]

People who do not purchase a home with a mortgage pay more income taxes than those who don't. The judge's thorough survey wasn't very thorough.

Are you arguing that failing to qualify for a tax deduction is equal to a tax penalty? LOL

[Mojave]

He got it right

Then he should run for Congress. Where did he get his authority to decide what the law should or shouldn't be?

[Mojave]

Are you arguing that failing to qualify for a tax deduction is equal to a tax penalty?

No. The mortgage deduction is much larger.

[Chunga]

Here's what Mark Levin said about the ruling today:

“Today Judge Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare: 1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United State Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise; 2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers; and 3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.

“Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama Administration and for the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still have meaning. Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several amicus briefs in this case, at the request of the Commonwealth, and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.

"It is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry. Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad, and General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this matter. We look forward to continuing to work with him."

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/obamacare%20news%20release.pdf

Mark Levin or "Mojave"? LOL!

[Chunga]

No. The mortgage deduction is much larger.

I will rephrase:

Do you believe tax deductions and tax penalties are the same thing?

[Mojave]

Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United State Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise

By that reasoning:

Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily sign up for Social Security -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United State Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise

Or:

Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase a home with a mortgage -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United State Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise

[Mojave]

Do you believe tax deductions and tax penalties are the same thing?

I believe that you don't have a Constitutional distinction that you can draw between them, so I'll call your bluff.

Produce it.

[Chunga]

I repeat:

Do you believe tax deductions and tax penalties are the same thing?

[onyx]

It's *unbridled power* you're endorsing!!

Are you Pelosi's lawyer? New law degree? Or do you just have the DNC's arguments handy? Quoting cases and all. LOL.

We're only a humble, conservative forum here, you know? Not a courtroom, counselor.

- - - - - - - - -

He [Federal Judge Henry Hudson] rejected stretching the Commerce Clause to allow the government to mandate purchases, noting it opened the gate to unbridled power:

A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.

The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance-or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage-it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution confers upon Congress only discrete enumerated governmental powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. See U.S. Canst. amend. X; Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 919, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 2376-77 (1997).　 [p. 37]

On careful review, this Court must conclude that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision-exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power. [at p. 38]

ObamaCare mandate found unconstitutional by federal judge

Full text of the document linked at the article linked above.

[Chunga]

Are you arguing that failing to qualify for a tax deduction and a tax penalty are the same thing?

[Oceander]

"We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional." -- Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)

It would be nice if you would actually quote enough of the language of the opinion itself to put it into proper perspective, and to actually provide an indication - since it's not readily apparent from the quoted phrase - what the Court is actually talking about.

(to every one else, my apologies for the less than crystal clear flow of the diatribe below; I wrote and rewrote it in several chunks, so it may not all fit seamlessly together; the argument itself, however, is solid)

First, here is the language you quote with its surrounding context (I've underlined and bolded the language you keep taking out of context): "The functions of government under our system are apportioned. To the legislative department has been committed the duty of making laws; to the executive, the duty of executing them; and to the judiciary the duty of interpreting and applying them in cases properly brought before the courts. The general rule is that neither department may invade the province of the other, and neither may control, direct or restrain the action of the other. We are not now speaking of the merely ministerial duties of officials. Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347. We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. Then the power exercised is that of ascertaining and declaring the law applicable to the controversy. It amounts to little more than the negative power to disregard an unconstitutional enactment, which otherwise would stand in the way of the enforcement of a legal right. The party who invokes the power must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. If a case for preventive relief be presented, the court enjoins, in effect, not the execution of the statute, but the acts of the official, the statute notwithstanding. Here, the parties plaintiff have no such case. Looking through forms of words to the substance of their complaint, it is merely that officials of the executive department of the government are executing and will execute an act of Congress asserted to be unconstitutional, and this we are asked to prevent."

The meat of what the Court was in fact discussing should be apparent when one quotes both the sentence you keep quoting and the sentence that follows it; to wit:
We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act.

In other words, the Supreme Court does, in fact, possess the power to hold an Act of Congress unconstitutional when it is presented with a "justiciable issue" that necessarily requires that the Court determine whether or not the Act in question has imposed a direct or threatened injury on a specific plaintiff or plaintiffs.

Thus, if an individual comes forward and proves to the Court that the execution of a particular Act of Congress caused a harm to that individual that Congress does not have the authority to impose under the Constitution, then the Supreme Court does, in fact, have the power to hold that Act unconstitutional.

The full language quoted above itself suggests that the Court is not simply stating that it has no authority to hold that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional - which is what you are claiming it says - but rather that the Court cannot do so in the abstract, without some concrete set of facts, and a concrete plaintiff to go along with those facts, with which to determine whether the application of an Act of Congress to the facts in front of the Court is, or is not, an act that surpasses the power granted to the Congress under the Constitution.

The broader context in which this opinion was given was, precisely, that of a plaintiff who, not having suffered a particularized harm from the statute in question, nonetheless sought what amounted to a declaratory judgment by the Supreme Court that the Maternity Act was, in the abstract, unconstitutional.

In other words, the Supreme Court in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon is doing nothing more than reiterating what the Court had held back in Marbury v. Madison; namely, that the Court requires a "justiciable controversy" to be brought before the Court can ever address the issue of whether or not an Act of Congress is unconstitutional.

The necessary implication from that is, of course, that once you have a "justiciable controversy" the Supreme Court has the power, through necessary implication - as was well set-out in Marbury v. Madison, to hold an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.

In other words, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon most emphatically does not stand for the proposition that the Court has no power to hold an Act of Congress unconstitutional, it stands for the much more pedestrian - and uncontroversial - point that the Supreme Court is not in the practice of giving advisory opinions based on hypothetical facts.

You might try quoting the Court's opinion for what it held, not for what you think you can make it say if you just cite a single sentence out of context.

[Jim Robinson]

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[Mojave]

I repeat:

I don’t believe that there is a Constitutional distinction that you can draw between tax deductions and tax penalties. But I’m patient. I’ll wait.

[Mojave]

It's *unbridled power* you're endorsing!!

You can't vote?

Actually, it's *unbridled power* by unelected judges that you're endorsing!!

[Mojave]

It would be nice if you would actually quote enough of the language of the opinion itself to put it into proper perspective

Did you try left-clicking your mouse button on the link I provided to the full test of the decision?

The full language quoted above itself suggests that the Court is not simply stating that it has no authority to hold that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional - which is what you are claiming it says

Nope, that's just your strawman. I even bolded the "per se" for the less perseptive.

[Mojave]

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

Cases. Constitutional review was created by a judicial decision, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The Constitution provides no explicit enumerated power for the courts to review the constitutionality of a law. That's your standard, isn't it?

[Jim Robinson]

The very case you're so fond of stating out of context goes on to say:

We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. Then the power exercised is that of ascertaining and declaring the law applicable to the controversy. It amounts to little more than the negative power to disregard an unconstitutional enactment, which otherwise would stand in the way of the enforcement of a legal right. The party who invokes the power must be able to show, not only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally. If a case for preventive relief be presented, the court enjoins, in effect, not the execution of the statute, but the acts of the official, the statute notwithstanding.

I'm no lawyer but it appears to me that the case was brought before the court by an injured party, the Commonwealth of Virginia vs The United States. The United States was a party to the suit. The Commonwealth had standing, the federal court had jurisdiction, heard the case, found the law unconstitutional and ruled in favor of the Commonwealth. The constitution was followed, the ruling is constitutionally sound. If you don't like it, you can KMA!

[onyx]

Are you Pelosi's lawyer? New law degree? Or do you just have the DNC's arguments handy? Quoting cases and all. LOL.

We're only a humble, conservative forum here, you know? Not a courtroom, counselor.

- - - - - - -

On careful review, this Court must conclude that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision-exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power. [at p. 38]

Judge Hudson ruled only the mandate unconstitutional, and not the whole bill, though stripping out the mandate would undercut much of the bill’s promise to expand access to health care while holding down costs. (Laughable promise).

[Jim Robinson]

No, idiot. Suit was brought before the court by the injured party. The federal court had jurisdiction. The injured party had standing. The court heard the case and ruled in favor of the injured party. Obama’s tyrannical healthcare act is ruled unconstitutional and if you don’t like it, tough!