Posted on 08/12/2011 10:43:48 AM PDT by americanophile
They can try, but they WILL fail.
I for one will not submit to more slavery implemented by this effing government. PERIOD.
Come and take it!
Here’s the decision:
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/ca11/201111021.pdf
It’s just 304 pages.
Congress may have the ability to levy taxes but that is not the point. If they have the ability to make you ‘buy’ gubbermint Hell care, gubbermint retirement, and gubbermint cheese at the point of a gun through an income tax.....Then they can make you ‘buy’ anything they want.
Tyranny. SS and Medicare are blatantly UNCONSTITUIONAL. Where does Congress get the authority to make you buy Medicare and Social Security?
Come and take it!
They can and they eventually will. They got more guns than you. I have come to believe that "Oathkeepers" is a pipe dream. If whatever you're doing is deemed to be against some new law, then you are screwed.
Got this sent to me on Facebook today.
Appropriate timing.
Dr Seuss 2011
I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like ex-speaker Nan, I do not like this ‘YES WE CAN’..
I do not like this spending spree, I’m smart, I know that nothing’s free.
I do not like their smug replies when I complain about their lies.
I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it. nope, nope, nope.
Severability clauses are not necessary for a court to uphold parts of the law, in fact, the general principle is that, with or without a severability clause, the court will try to maintain all parts of the law that are not ruled unconstitutional.
That's a second lawsuit, after the issue of individual mandate is finally determined by SCOTUS. It doesn't do any good to raise it now, because this IM strikedown is being appealed by the administration.
I wonder. When everyone's heads exploded over Miss "Wise Latina" Soto-mama, I thought that she might walk into the Court with a leftist arrogance so repugnant that it would compel Justice Kennedy to vote with the Conservatives to counter her on most matters. Let's hope that's the case here.
The analysis specifically of the individual mandate is on pages 99 - 205. Someone - maybe me - should convert this to html (out of pdf) and post it.
If it had been a single thread I never would have seen it. I like duplicates.
Not true - just the reverse, in fact. This is administrative law, which is positive law, which means you say it or it doesn't exist. Therefore, the lack of a severability clause would be seen as a declaration of interconnected reliance, otherwise the lack of such would be declared through severability.
Codes regularly contain severability declarations because of this construction requirement, and also, pragmatically, because they usually rely upon shared legal componants and interlocked jurisdictional authorities. So in the case of something as intricately interdependent upon shared legal authorities as this healthcare bill, the lack of severability is a death knell if any aspect is found unconstitutional.
I think the biggest news in this is that Frank Hull voted to overturn the mandate. She (yes, Judge Hull is a woman) is generally considered a “moderate-liberal” and was a Clinton appointee. I’d say she’s further to the left politically than Stevens who more often touts a libertarian route. If she voted against it chances are so will Stevens. And as stated supra, a Stevens vote means a 5-4 vote to overturn the mandate.
That should read Kennedy, not Stevens... stupid mistake
You can interpret it anyway you want. I have addressed this issue before and I will side with the Appeals Court. Anyway, your arguments about "interconnected reliance" have to do with the way the law is interpreted, not about whether or not there is a severability clause.
Let’s hope he doesn’t have an untimely (and “unexpected”) accident between now and then. (See Clinton administration body count)
That is exactly what the USSC is going to say. They are going to uphold the lower courts finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Then they will say that without a severability clause, they must throw the whole law out.
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.