Federal Court Decision Is a Big Setback for ObamaCare

Opinion Forum ^ | October 15, 2010 | Dan Miller

[DanMiller]

Alice in Wonderland notwithstanding, Congress must say what it means and mean what it says.

In an order released on October 14 . . . Judge Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, permitted an action by twenty states challenging the mandatory health insurance provisions of ObamaCare to go forward. . . .

He noted, "Reviewing courts cannot cannot look beyond a statute and inquire whether meant something different than what it said.

"I have no choice but to find that the penalty is not a tax."

Judge Vinson continued, noting that by declaring the provision a penalty rather than a tax the Congress reaped a political advantage: Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice in Wonderland” tack and argue in court that the Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad powers in check.

Amen.

I also find very encouraging the judicial reaffirmation that when the Congress expressly states its Constitutional authority in enacting legislation, it should be bound by it and not wander off into other possible (but rather improbable) realms to justify the legislation before the courts. ObamaCare was passed, not as justified by the taxing authority but as authorized under the Commerce clause. If it is is not permitted under the Commerce Clause, as it probably is not, it must fall.

[FlingWingFlyer]

A “historical” AND RARE win for Americans in OUR so called “courts”.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I have to add this: Figuring out the intent of Congress is more difficult than it used to be when most of the legislators have not read the bill, and the debate in the Congressional Record is therefore wholly inadequate for divining what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking at all. They were good party loyalist apparatchiks, which is why they must be turned out.

[tutstar]

ping

[tutstar]

gnip

[tutstar]

ping

[hondact200]

watch Obummer will come out and say that the intent is beneficial. Release your records you whinny ninny. Here the intent is to conceal more corruption. My intent s to shove your healthcare up where the sun does shine you arsehole.

[tutstar]

bttt

[DanMiller]

I agree. 2,070 page legislation is a travesty, and nobody reads the stuff. I would very much like to see all significant legislation expressly state its Constitutional basis or bases. That might make it more difficult to pass -- as would have been the case with ObamaCare -- and should at least keep judges from doing what Judge Vinson properly declined to to, go foraging around in the constitutional thicket for some marginally credible basis.

[TigersEye]

Good! Total death to 0bamaCare. Every trace of it should be erased.

[Candor7]

[Joe Bfstplk]

I thought that revenue bills were to be originated in the House. Thia penalty or tax plus the tanning tax originated in the Senate.

Someone please clarify. Thanks.

[VRWC For Truth]

It’s DOA. They can’t build enough jails to house all the people who won’t comply. These clowns need to be shown one big middle finger.

[dufekin]

Fear: the appellate court will rule that a “penalty” in the context of this bill is really just a specific type of “tax,” notably an “income tax” because every American ultimately must generate some income to pay it. The “income tax” amendment overrides all preexisting constitutional provisions, so it can’t be overturned as contrary to the right to property. The income tax amendment already repealed that right effectively.

[dufekin]

The Senate may amend tax bills from the House. In this case, the House of Representatives passed a special income tax on soldiers who own houses. The Senate amended this revenue-raising bill, appending Reid-care, to improve the bill, in the opinion of distinguished members of Congress. The House of Representatives, elated with the wisdom of the Senate, ultimately ratified their changes.

[SC_Pete]

“roe to hoe” Cracked me up. First I thought of fish eggs—then...

Roe versus Spade

[DanMiller]

Anything is, of course, possible. However, Judge Vinson did an excellent job of distinguishing taxes and penalties so I think he did as best could be done to make that very difficult

[SC_Pete]

I read somewhere that the bill has to specifically state how the tax will be used: listing specific sources and uses of funds. Since this is by law a “penalty”, it did not have to clarify uses of funds. It is unquestionably a penalty since the law did not meet the definition of a legal tax.

[ArmstedFragg]

Any opinion that quotes Lewis Carroll is my kind of opinion. If you like solid, logical, legal writing, it’s well worth your time to follow the link in the cited story and read the whole thing. The “dude got it”.

[GregoryFul]

Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice in Wonderland” tack and argue in court that the Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad powers in check.

But that is precisely what the FDR administration did with Social Security Insurance - called it a tax in front of the SC, and sold it as Insurance too the people...

The great lib liar. I a shocked! Putting it kindly, these people truly do not know their head from their a$$hole.