Skip to comments.ObamaCare Is No Longer A Law (Obama Arrogantly Continues Implementation of Unlawful Measure)
Posted on 02/01/2011 5:26:47 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
The Law: Already bruised and unpopular, ObamaCare has now been issued a death sentence. Yet the White House says it will "proceed apace" with its implementation. Has anyone there heard of checks and balances?
...The measure was already invalidated by the courts once before, the House has overwhelmingly passed a bill to repeal it, insurance companies are bailing out of markets left and right because of its profit-killing mandates and the government has issued Obama-Care waivers by the hundreds...
Despite all this, and with no sense of irony, the White House contends Vinson "overreached" in his decision, vows that the revamping of the world's best health care system will continue and warns states against using the ruling to delay its implementation. What is it about "unconstitutional" that this administration doesn't understand? ...
As a lawyer for the 26 states that sued to block Obama-Care put it: "The statute is dead." That means current regulations,... cannot be enforced. It means that all bureaucratic work on the legislation must be stopped, that funding for programs from the National Health Services Corps to student loans be put on hold and that every working group or panel created by the statute be disbanded. It means that the White House and the Senate, where the Democrats still have a majority and plan to challenge Vinson's ruling with a hearing on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's constitutionality, must act as if ObamaCare does not exist. Anything that it authorized or required must be set aside. The White House plans to appeal Vinson's ruling. But until it asks for a stay and a court grants one, the government should cease and desist from implementing ObamaCare if it's to stay within the bounds of the law. Don't be surprised, though, if it doesn't.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Pinkos bluff every hand. Nohting stops them but to call their bluff.
Court decision did not issue an injunction and the House measure hasn't been taken up in the Senate.
They didn’t have to , it’s VOID. It’s unconstitutional, so no need...
“Proceed apace” ranks right up there with a “move afoot” in annoying me.
Everywhere I look this evening I see the exec branch defying Congress & the Judicial. How do we enforce the legit demands and how do we call their “bluff?”
Well, I didn’t say we wouldn’t have to shoot a few of them along the way.
Out of the 16 cases brought to court, four decisions have been rendered. Two have said constitutional, two have said unconstitutional. It obviously has to be taken to appeals, then, possibly the Supreme Court before it’s void. Hopefully, it will be found unconstitutional at the highest court soon, but it’s far from over.
“two have said constitutional”
I’m not sure the courts actually stated that in those cases, more like those who brought on the suit lacked standing.
I guess you’ve not read the relevant portion of the decision. Judge Vinson held that as the law had been ruled unconstitutional in toto and was thus void that an injunction would be redundant: there is nothing to enjoin, as the law isn’t a law anymore.
Obama deliberately violated federal law and an Act of Congress by unilaterally canceling the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository program, simply to get Harry Reid re-elected. That violates the clear mandate of Congress in the 1986 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). The NWPA is still the law of the land. It mandates that Yucca Mountain programs move forward. But Obama told Congress to f-off, he wasn't going to do it.
It is truly a rogue Administration, recognizing no law other than itself. Congress really needs to step up and take their oaths of office seriously and remedy the situation. It is clear that Obama doesn't take his oath of office seriously. He has violated it repeatedly. We are either governed by the rule of law, or we aren't. It's clear where the Administration stands. Where does Congress stand?
In neither of those cases was the suit brought on constitutional grounds, so the verdict had no bearing on the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Indeed, I believe at least one case was dismissed for "lack of standing".
What would you expect from our lawless & illegitimate executive branch of government?
Actually, district court judge George Caram Steeh (a Clinton employee) contorted to commerce clause to rule it was within congressional constitutional power.
Yes, but the Virgina decision refused to impose an injunction on the grounds the law was not yet in effect.
I wish those drilling companies would just tow those platforms out and start em up. When the Federal Marshals show up at company offices, they (The Marshals) get arrested by Texas State Troopers and transported immediately to the nearest state line and dumped out.
Beg your forgiveness.
No prob. One of the reasons I frequent the site is I learn something new almost everyday.
If this holds up and it remain unconstitutional how is it how every miscreant that voted for it isn’t held accountable for not upholding their sworn oath to protect the Constitution?
You’re channeling Reagan tonight!
...and the Libs called Nixon the Imperial President.
I’m liking Investor Business Daily.
So how is this enforced? If continued implementation is no longer allowed. Also, is this a first in US history, Executive branch ignoring the Legal branch?
When the Socialist leader of Honduras TRIED to come up with his own, UNCONSTITUTIONAL ballot measure in an attempt to make himself "leader for life", the Honduran COURTS ordered the Honduran MILITARY to seize him and he was DEPORTED/EXILED to another country.
The military was VERY high profile in defending the court-ordered action by keeping the rabble-rousing Socialist/Communist thugs and union members (one in the same) from attempting to re-install the POS.
I suggest the Marine CORPSE (yeah, Obama REALLY reveres and respects our military, doesn't he?) do the honors, and the perfect place to exile OUR Socialist Man-Child-In-Chief is CUBA.
Of course, we need to take the Honduran solution farther in that we need to ENSURE that no Socialist/Communist/Progressive usurpers of FREEDOM EVER get back in power.
Again, our military could help get the job done.
I predict Vinson will be overturned by the Appeals Court or even the Supremes. Few judges are brave enough to buck Obama. Don’t be surprised if it happens.
That’s because the VA decision pretended there was a separability clause and only struck down the mandate, not the law in toto. Vinson’s decision, rightly I think, noted that the lack of a separability clause was intentional, as, were it possible to separate the mandate the law minus the mandate would have had very undesirable effects (and I would note undesirable from the point of view of both patriots and socialists, albeit for different reasons).
I struck up a conversation a week ago with a Loyola Law School student here in L.A. about the FL decision if it goes through. What she said the interpretation was that if the IRS calls you to court for not paying, the decision will be valid and is admissible in court. For now SCOTUS will be the nail in the coffin.
Oh boy, obama has become a dictator if he ignores the courts ruling.
Now all we need is peaceful opposition in mass against him with the support of the military to keep the FBI and over eager SWAT teams at bay.
No wonder obama gets a tngle from the situation in Egypt, he knows Americans don’t have the stomach to do the same.
I agree. There is no separability clause. The Left seems to have boxed themselves into an awkward position. If they allow the mandate to be struck down to preserve the remainder, they lose a portion of the funds from fines. It was already shaky, at best, but this kick a leg out from under their CBO submission. If they say there is no clause, the entire bill would fall under honest, objective judicial review. Should be fun to watch.
"True, Vinson didn't grant an injunction against ObamaCare in his 78-page ruling. But that's because he clearly considers his judgment to be an injunction in itself. He expects the executive branch to comply with the law as he has ruled. "There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here," he [Vinson] wrote."
The argument is, since Judge Vinson has struck down the law as unconstitutional, he doesn't have to additionally make an injunction saying "Do not proceed with implementing this unlawful statute."
Anyway, I’m no lawyer. You seem to be keeping up with these things in detail, for which I thank you. Down the line, if you post anything I should see, please ping me, OK?
Problem is: it’s void only in those jurisdictions where it has been adjudicated void.
It’s still in effect everywhere else.
Ergo, the Executive Branch is still tasked with executing it, at least where it is still in effect.
Next question is whether it will be appealed and how. The Feds COULD just let the verdicts stand and execute it in the rest of the country until the latter also file suit and demand it overturned. Doesn’t go to SCOTUS until an appellee can say “look, another equal court ruled the opposite way; we demand resolution of contradictory verdicts.”
Right. Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled “[T]here is a long standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.”