Wooo Hooo!!!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
To: Keith in Iowa
2 posted on
08/12/2011 10:45:14 AM PDT by
americanophile
("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
To: Keith in Iowa
Oh my gosh Keith, that is great news. Chalk one up for some sanity rearing its sorely missed head.
4 posted on
08/12/2011 10:47:03 AM PDT by
Republic
(uhbama sure has brought a grubby cabal of filth into his inner circle)
To: Keith in Iowa
The political left and this president don’t care what the law is.
5 posted on
08/12/2011 10:48:25 AM PDT by
edcoil
(The will to win is important, but the will to prepare is vital. -- Joe Paterno)
To: Keith in Iowa
How can the rest of the law remain in effect since it did not have a Severability Clause? ?
6 posted on
08/12/2011 10:49:02 AM PDT by
Perdogg
(0bama got 0sama?? Really, was 0sama on the golf course?)
To: Keith in Iowa; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; xzins; Forest Keeper
How can they rule the balance of the law remains in effect? My understanding is the law was written without a severability(?) clause.
8 posted on
08/12/2011 10:50:08 AM PDT by
wmfights
(If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
To: Keith in Iowa
I will celebrate, but will still mourn that this is even a discussion in our once great Republic.
9 posted on
08/12/2011 10:50:29 AM PDT by
CSM
(Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
To: Keith in Iowa
10 posted on
08/12/2011 10:51:20 AM PDT by
null and void
(Day 932. The mob is decisive when the law is not.)
To: Keith in Iowa
Sucks. They say the rest can stay. They are saying that severabilty clause is implied even if not specifically written.
11 posted on
08/12/2011 10:52:08 AM PDT by
wiggen
(The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
To: Keith in Iowa
Despite the headline, it’s not good news as long as they ignore the problem of no severability clause.
12 posted on
08/12/2011 10:54:38 AM PDT by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius.)
To: Keith in Iowa
Great news! So, does it even have to go to SCOTUS if yet another Judge says it's unconstitutional? Is it time to call the hearse? . . or is it yet another 'not so fast'? . .
13 posted on
08/12/2011 10:56:01 AM PDT by
Art in Idaho
(Conservatism is the only hope for Western Civilization.)
To: Keith in Iowa
WooHoo is right. Oh boy. This is turning out to be the *wonderfullest* day for a long time!
19 posted on
08/12/2011 10:58:46 AM PDT by
MestaMachine
(Going down! (Gunwalker Ping List))
To: Keith in Iowa
The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.This is like cats professing insight into the lives of dogs.
To: Keith in Iowa
Obamacare is going to the SC and going down. Praise the Lord!
22 posted on
08/12/2011 11:00:52 AM PDT by
ohioWfan
(Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
If only our Congressman Billybob were still with us to savor the victory...
23 posted on
08/12/2011 11:03:17 AM PDT by
Keith in Iowa
(Hope & Change - I'm out of hope, and change is all I have left every week | FR Class of 1998 |)
To: Keith in Iowa
but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect. So, although the rest of the law could remain in effect, isn't it also dead, based on not having funds flowing from the uninsured? I'm thinking that the numbers would change to costing trillions more.
To: Keith in Iowa
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
But the Court cannot unconstitutionally add a severance clause to the act where there was none and rule, unconstitutionally, that the rest of the law could remain in effect.
36 posted on
08/12/2011 11:08:00 AM PDT by
aruanan
To: Keith in Iowa
Obama care won’t work without the individual mandate. Great news!
37 posted on
08/12/2011 11:08:10 AM PDT by
Matchett-PI
(Obamageddon, Barackalypse Now! Bam is "Debt Man Walking" in 2012 - Rush Limbaugh)
To: Keith in Iowa
How can the court rule the rest of it is constitutional. Congress neglected to include the separability clause in the law. The entire friggin’ law is now void.
39 posted on
08/12/2011 11:08:57 AM PDT by
Gaffer
To: Keith in Iowa
That’s going to leave a mark..
41 posted on
08/12/2011 11:09:16 AM PDT by
WayneS
(Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
To: Keith in Iowa
High-fives are in order, I believe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson