Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Federal judge rules ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Exclamation Federal judge rules ObamaCare is unconstitutional in its entirety

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/3...-its-entirety/
    PDF OF THE FEDERAL JUDGES DECISION. http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html

    What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable” from the rest of the law — which means that the whole law is unconstitutional, not just the part that requires people to buy insurance. That’s unusual insofar as courts like to be modest when striking down statutes; if they can find a section of it unconstitutional while preserving the rest of it, they’ll do so out of respect for the democratic branches that enacted it. In this case, however, as we’ve been told by Democrats many times, you can’t have universal health care unless you force people to pay for it. Cutting the mandate out of O-Care and keeping the rest of the scheme intact would create a nightmare scenario in which people avoid buying insurance until they get sick, with insurers required to accept them by the new rules governing preexisting conditions. Before long, that cost burden would drive most insurers into bankruptcy, with the golden age of a public option or single-payer soon to follow.


    A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!
    Last edited by zack991; 01-31-2011 at 08:49 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anywhere but here.
    Posts
    523
    Score one for rational thought.
    This site has been hijacked by leftists who attack opposition to further their own ends. Those who have never served this country and attack those who do are no longer worthy of my time or attention.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Awesome!
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 01-31-2011 at 09:03 PM.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Judge Citizen ruled today that the law in question is not binding on anybody because it was neither read nor understood by their representatives. The bill not being understood, affirmative votes are meaningless, and an unconstitutional delegation of responsibility to the bill's authors.

    Also, such voting is an abuse of the court's doctrine that all acts by Congress are presumptively constitutional. No voting member can possibly determine the constitutionality of a bill if he hasn't read it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-31-2011 at 09:10 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    SO if the US Supreme court finds any bit of it unconstitutional the whole thing will be tossed, it would be better if the court found the way the government has used the commerce clause to far exceed their authority.
    Last edited by zack991; 01-31-2011 at 09:15 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I doubt that it was an oversight. I'd bet that it was deliberately left out, knowing full well that, if they put severability in, the individual mandate would surely get lopped off, emasculating the bill. However, if they left severability out, then the hapless judge who got the case, not having castration as an option, would be faced with issuing the death penalty or no penalty. Clearly they thought there was no way the judge would guillotine the whole thing.

    Wrongo.

  7. #7
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/3...-its-entirety/
    PDF OF THE FEDERAL JUDGES DECISION. http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html

    What is a bit surprising is that Vinson went further and held that the mandate isn’t “severable” from the rest of the law — which means that the whole law is unconstitutional, not just the part that requires people to buy insurance. That’s unusual insofar as courts like to be modest when striking down statutes; if they can find a section of it unconstitutional while preserving the rest of it, they’ll do so out of respect for the democratic branches that enacted it. In this case, however, as we’ve been told by Democrats many times, you can’t have universal health care unless you force people to pay for it. Cutting the mandate out of O-Care and keeping the rest of the scheme intact would create a nightmare scenario in which people avoid buying insurance until they get sick, with insurers required to accept them by the new rules governing preexisting conditions. Before long, that cost burden would drive most insurers into bankruptcy, with the golden age of a public option or single-payer soon to follow.


    A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!
    So, IF IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT.... just maybe PELOSI SHOULD HAVE READ THE DAMN THING BEFORE VOTING ON IT!

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Bookman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    So, IF IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT.... just maybe PELOSI SHOULD HAVE READ THE DAMN THING BEFORE VOTING ON IT!
    +10

    "Let's pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it." (or words to that effect) may be the dumbest thing ever said on national television.
    "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke


    "I like people who stand on the Constitution... unless they're using it to wipe their feet." - Jon E Hutcherson

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
    +10

    "Let's pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it." (or words to that effect) may be the dumbest thing ever said on national television.


    I don't know, this one from Charles Rangel was pretty bad too.

    "Read the Bill? What good is reading the Bill if wont be able to understand it anyway." (paraphrased)
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 02-01-2011 at 05:39 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    I don't know, this one from Charles Rangel was pretty bad too.

    "Read the Bill? What good is reading the Bill if wont be able to understand it anyway." (paraphrased)
    Seems like an "attitude" that needs adjustment.... and MORE adjustment is coming I hope!.... Replace them with elected representatives and congress persons WHO ACTUALLY REPRESENT US not answer inquiries into if a bill is constitutional with "I don't know, I am not a constitutional lawyer" or "we don't have time to read the bill.

    Jeez, IF one is ETHICAL then they would KNOW that they cannot ethically vote for something if they don't know what is in it or if it is even supported /allowed by the CONSTITUTION THEY SWORE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND!

    Good on this Judge..... seems like his head in on straight and he knows it is not his job to repair this flawwed law.
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 02-01-2011 at 06:12 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Bookman View Post
    +10

    "Let's pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it." (or words to that effect) may be the dumbest thing ever said on national television.
    Why does everyone quote only part of the sentence? The entire quote is:

    "Let's pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Why does everyone quote only part of the sentence? The entire quote is:

    "Let's pass this bill, so we can find out what's in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
    Oh I see because the controversy will just disappear if you pass it without Knowing what's in it?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Judge Citizen ruled today that the law in question is not binding on anybody because it was neither read nor understood by their representatives. The bill not being understood, affirmative votes are meaningless, and an unconstitutional delegation of responsibility to the bill's authors.

    Also, such voting is an abuse of the court's doctrine that all acts by Congress are presumptively constitutional. No voting member can possibly determine the constitutionality of a bill if he hasn't read it.
    Couldn't have said it better. This the SCOTUS should have slapped this thing down a long time ago.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Judge Citizen ruled today that the law in question is not binding on anybody because it was neither read nor understood by their representatives. The bill not being understood, affirmative votes are meaningless, and an unconstitutional delegation of responsibility to the bill's authors.

    Also, such voting is an abuse of the court's doctrine that all acts by Congress are presumptively constitutional. No voting member can possibly determine the constitutionality of a bill if he hasn't read it.

    And for them to demonstrate "understanding" of what they voted on---- Those voting must write a paper by themselves from memory convering the details of the legislation (or proposed legislation) that is only 1/3 the length of the legislation (proposed legislation)!

  15. #15
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984

    SD says mandatory gun ownership


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •