ObamaCare Is No Longer A Law (Obama Arrogantly Continues Implementation of Unlawful Measure)

Investors Business Daily ^ | February 1, 2011 | IBD Editorial Staff

[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.

[surfer]

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?

[1010RD]

You’re channeling Reagan tonight!

[1010RD]

...and the Libs called Nixon the Imperial President.

[foundedonpurpose]

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?

[DocH]

Maybe the solution for Obama's insolence is to use the Honduran solution.

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.

[goldstategop]

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.

[The_Reader_David]

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).

[max americana]

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.

[Eye of Unk]

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.

[edpc]

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This was dealt with briefly in a section of the article that I had snipped because of space limitations:

"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."

[Mrs. Don-o]

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?

[ctdonath2]

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.”

[Mrs. Don-o]

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.”