[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!

[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

[samtheman]

Thanks for posting Mark Levin on this. Very instructive.