Skip to comments.FL Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Unconstitutional
Posted on 01/31/2011 12:35:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Federal Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, in a lawsuit by 26 state attorney generals, has held that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional. Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient (in effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived).
Here is the conclusion of the Order:
"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. ... In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Courts current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED. In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional."
Florida Health Care Mandate Lawsuit, Summary Judgement Order (At link or web address below) http://www.scribd.com/doc/47906075/Florida-Health-Care-Mandate-Lawsuit-Summary-Judgment-Order
So I guess we’re on to the Supreme Court with the inevitable challenge to this judge’s ruling?
I don’t know what the Obama regime will pull in response to this, but for the moment I can only say God bless this patriot Judge. If there is one thing this country needs right now...it is patriots.
This is going to get real interesting with budgets, since Republicans can say we aren't funding anything that is found to be unconstitutional and we are not allowing agencies to start writing regulations for something that has been found to be unconstitutional.
At the very least, ObahmaCare has been set back 3 to 9 months, if not totally scrapped.
Patriot or not the judge is a constitutionalist and that is as good as a patriot.
FUBO & FAD
I pray the SC refuses to hear it.
I can just hear chrissy mathews now. “This judge is a right wing nut who was probably in the kkk.”
And the thugs running our government will completely ignore the ruling, as usual. Naturally, the media will excoriate them for it.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Will SCOTUS say that we serfs have “no standing?”
will Obama and the NAACP now declare the Judge a racist?
[that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Courts current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.]
This concerns me. The USSC should not be in the business of expanding the power of the federal gov’t. The Constitution grants the powers that it grants and any additional power requires a constitutional amendment!
The list, ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Appellate court is the next step . Also, the obamanauts will undoubtedly ask for a stay pending the outcome of the appeal. Let's hope they don't get granted a stay or Obamacare might go into effect before the appeal gets heard. The obamunists will also try to get a contrary decision in another jurisdiction in case the appellate court for Florida doesn't want to hear their appeal.
Without a doubt!
26 States involved...Excellent!!!
Obama & Pelosi taken to the woodshed.
we should still not depend on the SCOTUS though
Pelosi’s cocktail waiters couldn’t be bothered to put a few hard returns into the 3,000+ pages therefore there is no severability therefore the whole thing is O - U - T.
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.