This is my Happy Thought!
Posted on 01/31/2011 12:06:59 PM PST by Marty62
Edited on 01/31/2011 12:19:03 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Updated: Monday, 31 Jan 2011, 3:07 PM EST
Published : Monday, 31 Jan 2011, 3:07 PM EST
(NewsCore) - A Florida federal judge ruled Monday in a 26-state challenge to the national health care law that the provision requiring individuals to purchase health insurance by 2014 or suffer a penalty is unconstitutional, Fox News Channel reported.
Excerpt, see myfoxdetroit
Listening to Greta now.
LOL. Greta is practically calling the lawyers in congress *idiots*...LOL.
Part 1 - Medical Expandsion. Looks like the state of Florida could have done a much better job on this part of the case -- the judge actually ruled in favor of HHS (Obama) for this portion of the case.
Part 2A - Individual Mandate (re: the Commerce Clause). This is hugh and series. Two individuals were cited as having sufficient standing to join the lawsuit. Utah and Idaho (at least) also have standing due to anti-Obamacare legislation passed in their respective states. No other states needed to be evaluated (by precedent).
The Judge spent a LOT of pages (~30) discussing the Commerce Clause, its history, case law, and then the possible scenarios. He's concerned over whether ANYTHING might be out of the reach of Congressional regulation if you accept the Gov'ts notion that even NOT participating in the health care industry constitutes "economic activity." Judge asserts that the act of not buying health insurance has ZERO impact on economic activity - unequivocally. The Gov't essentially claims that people inevitably get sick and access the health care system, and thus can be regulated. A liberal judge would no doubt concur with their view, but this judge did not.
Part 2B - the Necessary and Proper Clause. Judge rules that the Gov't overstepped its interpretation of this clause - that it means the Gov't has the power to carry out its mandates; NOT that it can do things outside its Constitutional mandates. Good.
In summary of Part 2 - the Gov't lost both parts 2A and 2B. Part 3 - Severability. Congress included no severability clause; judge interprets this as intentional and that the bill can't stand without the individual mandate. Ruling for the plaintiffs.
Finally - the injunction: because of the absence of severability and the declaration that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, this is IN EFFECT an injunction ruling.
Cavuto is covering it now on FoxNews
Actually, when Curly wasn't around, it was Shemp who joined Larry and Moe as the third Stooge. Maybe Shep took the "m" and used it for metrosexual. Although, calling him that gives him the benefit of the doubt. I think he's a full-fledged member of the other team.
Mine too!!
2,000 pages of legislation, no severability clause.
I love the stupidity of the Democrats. That’s what they get for ramming the bill down our throats.
Personally, I find it hilarious that for all of the stuff they packed into the monstrous bill, they neglected to include a severability clause, which is one of the most basic elements of a contract.
"The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” ..., and “drastic” remedy.... It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption; that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.
"... There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."
Ha.
...through his appointee, Judge Vinson.
Thanks for the summary.
We aren't talking about the best and the brightest here. We're talking about Democrats. 400,000 words, 2,000 pages -- no severability clause. Love it!
Guess they can use all those printed copies this winter to stave off the global warming chill.
LOL! Yeah, my bad ... maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part. I didn’t mean to disparage poor Shemp (may he RIP)!
I wonder if the 0-boy still wants to continue the feckless exercise of identifying himself with Reagan, since RR’s appointee struck his most prized “accomplishment” down?
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.