Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking On Fox: VA Judge Declares Individual Mandate In ObamaCare UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Fox News | 12/13/10 | Fox News

Posted on 12/13/2010 9:21:01 AM PST by careyb

Just in... will keep you posted...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; bhohealthcare; commiecomeuppence; cuccinelli; healthcare; individualmandate; obamacare; ruling; scotus; statesrights; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-349 next last
To: nina0113; Charles Henrickson
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Education—they’re all unconstitutional, too, but they’re not going away in the near future. So we’ll have to see if this holds up. Just because they've been around for a while doesn't mean they have eternal life. They SHOULD go away in the near future. And as the economic collapse continues and gets worse, there just won't be enough money, real or imagined, to party on any longer.
301 posted on 12/13/2010 1:00:35 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Cuccinelli argued just as I suggested...from the ruling:

"The Commonwealth emphasizes that the best evidence of congressional intent is the language chosen by that legislative body. In the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision (26 U.S.C. 5000A(b)(1)) Congress specifically denominated this payment for failure to comply with the mandate as a "penalty."

Judge Hudson didn't fall for the defendant's attempt to call the penalty a tax. From the ruling:

"In concluding that Congress did not intend to exercise its powers of taxation under the General Welfare Clause, this Courts' analysis begins with the unequivocal denials by the Executive and Legislative branches that the ACA was a tax. (Emphasis added)

...and...

"This Court is therefore unpersuaded that Section 1501(b)(1) is a bona fide revenue raising measure enacted under the taxing power of Congress. As the Supreme Court pointed out in La Franca, 202 U.S. at 572, 515 S. Ct. at 280. The penalizing feature of this so-called tax has clearly 'los[t] its character as such' and has become 'a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.' Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. at 799, 114 S. Ct. at 1946 (citing Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. at 28, 42 S. Ct. at 451). No plausible argument can be made that it has 'the purpose of supporting the Government.'"

The court therefore concluded that Section 1501(b)9(1) was a penalty, not a tax, notwithstanding the government's lame arguments to the contrary.

302 posted on 12/13/2010 1:17:20 PM PST by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
But the version passed and signed came from the Senate. So, if it is a tax, then the law must start in the House - so it is unconstitutional that way also.

Excellent point!

303 posted on 12/13/2010 1:18:34 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: anglian; BuckeyeTexan
Here is the "significant error" that I see in Judge Hudson's reasoning...

"Having found a portion of the Act to be invalid, the Section 1501 requirement to maintain minimum essential health care coverage, the Court's next task is to determine whether this Section is severable from the balance of the enactment. Predictably, the Secretary counsels severability, and the Commonwealth urges wholesale invalidation. The Commonwealth's position flows in part form the Secretary's frequent contention that section 1501 is the linchpin of the entire health care regimen underlying the ACA." (Emphasis added)

However, in spite of this admission by the defendant, the judge went on to rule:

"this Court will hew closely to the time-honored rule to sever with circumspection, severing any 'problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.' Ayotte, 546 U.S. at 329, 126 S. Ct. at 967. Accordingly, the Court will sever only Section 1501 and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to Section 1501." (Emphasis added)

So in spite of the Secretary plainly admitting that the Act was unsustainable without Section 1501, the Judge ruled for severability instead of declaring the whole thing un-Constitutional. :-(

304 posted on 12/13/2010 1:28:52 PM PST by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1; anglian

I think had he ruled otherwise, he risked having his decision overturned. There are other laws that have been passed without a severability clause where the SCOTUS held only specific pieces were unconstitutional. (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley)

I don’t like it either and believe as you do that if 1501 is key, then toss it all. But I’d rather see the key piece ruled unconstitutional than have Hudson’s entire decision overturned or sent back to him for reconsideration. Let the SCOTUS throw out the whole thing then there can be no arguments.


305 posted on 12/13/2010 1:42:47 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1; anglian

I think had he ruled otherwise, he risked having his decision overturned. There are other laws that have been passed without a severability clause where the SCOTUS held only specific pieces were unconstitutional. (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley)

I don’t like it either and believe as you do that if 1501 is key, then toss it all. But I’d rather see the key piece ruled unconstitutional than have Hudson’s entire decision overturned or sent back to him for reconsideration. Let the SCOTUS throw out the whole thing then there can be no arguments.


306 posted on 12/13/2010 1:43:06 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

What’s up, big guy? You haven’t said a word about this ruling. I expected a “Woo! Hoo!” at a minimum.


307 posted on 12/13/2010 1:54:59 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

What’s up, big guy? You haven’t said a word about this ruling. I expected a “Woo! Hoo!” at a minimum.


308 posted on 12/13/2010 1:55:12 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Woo hoo!! But I’ll save the cigar until the fat lady sings.


309 posted on 12/13/2010 1:57:06 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Nuke the corrupt commie bastards to HELL!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

That’s more like it. :)


310 posted on 12/13/2010 2:06:11 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1

Bwahahaha! Drudge reminds us of Nazi Pelosi’s response, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” to a reporter’s question about where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

I had forgotten. This is great!


311 posted on 12/13/2010 2:16:36 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy

Ok, showing my ignorance here, is this an appeal of the other 2 judges decision? I know about the appeal process, was it in lower courts in the other states? I would appreciate any info on this.


312 posted on 12/13/2010 2:26:57 PM PST by mel (since progressive is code word for anti- i am a progressive progressive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Nice! Exposed as the idiotic, lunatic, power-hungry fascist she really is.


313 posted on 12/13/2010 2:34:21 PM PST by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: careyb
Judge appointed by GW Bush

This to me is why elections REALLLY matter. Judges. Yeah, I know, even Ronald Reagan appointed a few non conservatives. But with Obama we get all left-wing -nut-job- judges.

I will support whomever the Republican nominee is because I think nothing could be worse than Obama!!! (and I came seconds away from leaving the Republican party in 2008, had the form in-hand, only stayed so I could vote in primaries)

314 posted on 12/13/2010 2:37:04 PM PST by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mel

No, this wasn’t an appeal. This is a separate case in Virginia.


315 posted on 12/13/2010 2:37:48 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

That pesky Constitution...Which was meant to be a lot more pesky to the elite than it has been thanks to our traitorous judical branch. I hope that changes...

Good point. No, GREAT point, and I hope you get that wish for Christmas.


316 posted on 12/13/2010 3:06:17 PM PST by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: careyb

He COULD say it 300 million times, for each and every US citizen whose Constitution has dodged another bullet, including those who think they want it. I know, I know, it will go to SCOTUS, but I believe Judge Hudson’s ruling will be upheld. I’d have been shocked if he ruled otherwise.


317 posted on 12/13/2010 3:08:58 PM PST by EDINVA (5H3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

You waived the Constitution when you signed up for Social Security. Same with your Driver License.


318 posted on 12/13/2010 3:24:10 PM PST by screaminsunshine (Americanism vs Communism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
"I think had he ruled otherwise, he risked having his decision overturned. There are other laws that have been passed without a severability clause where the SCOTUS held only specific pieces were unconstitutional. (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley)"

That is exactly why he didn't throw the entire thing out. He threw a wrench in the fan, but he didn't pull the plug. Now, the wrench will create a hell of a lot of damage. As I read the ruling, it was obvious that he was very careful to go after the most obvious flaw in the legislation. He knew the entire ruling could easily be reversed had he thrown the entire thing out. Wise approach by da' judge.
319 posted on 12/13/2010 3:33:57 PM PST by AdamBomb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: careyb
Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research Membership Recovery Act Allocates $1.1 Billion for Comparative Effectiveness Research

LINK

Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will be Fined or Jailed if they Put Patients First by Dr. Elaina George
LINK

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
LINK

OBAMACARE’S LETHAL THIRD RAIL SHOCK TO COME
LINK

Toll-Free number to the Congressional Switchboard
(866) 338-1015

202-224-6121 DeMint
202-225-3021 Pence
202-225-6205 Boehner
202-225-2331 Bachmann

320 posted on 12/13/2010 4:13:07 PM PST by GailA (NO JESUS, NO CHRISTmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-349 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson