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

Skip to comments.

ObamaCare ruling [VANITY Question!]
self | 27 June 2012 | self

Posted on 06/27/2012 7:42:06 AM PDT by ShadowAce

Disclaimer: IANAL in any way, shape or form, but I can think through arguments pretty well.

OK, I've seen this mentioned a couple of times back when it was first passed, but not so much these days.

With everyone saying that it is likely that the mandate will be struck down--a key part of it certainly--why is no one expecting the entire law to be struck down due to the lack of a severability clause? Wouldn't that lack mean (or even require) that the entire law be vacated if one part is declared unconstitutional?

If the reason you give is not supported in documentation anywhere in terms of law, please give an explanation of why people are disregarding law to get this unholy piece of crap passed.

Thank you in advance!!!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; scotus; vanity

1 posted on 06/27/2012 7:42:16 AM PDT by ShadowAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Simple.

Because they can. Now, back to work comrade!


2 posted on 06/27/2012 7:47:38 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; Don_B; AuH2ORepublican
That is the main question that is being asked. I guess you need a legal expert on FR to answer that. However, given that Roberts is writing the opinion, is a good sign that law is probably being struckdown.
3 posted on 06/27/2012 7:47:55 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

I think they will be looking for middle ground to half way appease everybody. I hope they rule the whole thing unconstitutional but would be surprized if they do.


4 posted on 06/27/2012 7:48:46 AM PDT by SWEETSUNNYSOUTH (Liberalism is a mental disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWEETSUNNYSOUTH

It is not necessary to rule the whole law unconstitutional to dispose of it. If the mandate falls, the structure built upon it — the means to fund the Act — MUST fall as the Congress failed to provide severability.

Scalia made the point by rejecting the notion the Court could be expected to wade through 3000 pages of text to cherry pick what could survive and what would fail. It is Congress’s job to write the Law; the SCOTUS will NOT do so for it.

Absent the severability component, the entire Act lives or dies on the failure of any one or more critical components.

One Man’s Opinion

21stCenturion


5 posted on 06/27/2012 7:55:29 AM PDT by 21stCenturion ("It's the Judges, Stupid !")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

learn to love ObamaCare ,it’s already doing whatever it does and it’s not going anywhere ,wait until they find the part that says Obama can be president for life


6 posted on 06/27/2012 7:59:47 AM PDT by molson209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 21stCenturion
Absent the severability component, the entire Act lives or dies on the failure of any one or more critical components.

That's my thought as well, but I'm not hearing anyone in the media talk about it like this. And it's been fading from FR as well too, which concerns me.

7 posted on 06/27/2012 8:00:21 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 21stCenturion

Sure hope you’re right. I guess we will see tomorrow.


8 posted on 06/27/2012 8:01:38 AM PDT by SWEETSUNNYSOUTH (Liberalism is a mental disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
given that Roberts is writing the opinion

How do we know that Roberts is writing the opinion?

9 posted on 06/27/2012 8:01:46 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Thank you for stating what I had originally thought was obvious! Seriously, if the Supremes smack down any portion of the law, the entire law is supposed to be toast based on the lack of a severability clause.

“Severability clauses are also commonly found in legislation, where they state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law.”

This law had no severability clause, so if the individual mandate is struck down, the whole bill should die along with it.


10 posted on 06/27/2012 8:02:18 AM PDT by sdcraigo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

When it was first passed, we were talking about what was and was not in the law. Now we are talking about what the SC might do. Since they have been so unpredictable, we’ve got to consider all the options, even the ones that don’t make legal sense.


11 posted on 06/27/2012 8:03:15 AM PDT by mongrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2899079/posts?page=242#242

http://minx.cc/?post=330437

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/speculation-grows-that-roberts-will-write-majority-opinion-in-health-care-case/2012/06/26/gJQAShqe4V_print.html


12 posted on 06/27/2012 8:06:06 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mongrel

Actually, the supreme court has been very predictable..

They have not voted for what is “popular” or “in vogue”..

They have voted for the constitution..

They got it 100% right in arizona...

They will get it 100% right here...

The law will get struck down in it’s entirety...

(as a side note, it would almost, almost, appear that kagan might not be the activist that fubo thought she was, I am going to keep an eye on her)


13 posted on 06/27/2012 8:09:36 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
If you think what he did after the SB1070 ruling raised eyebrows, just wait til you see what he does if ObamaCare is struck down. Even if the SC denies the mandate but leaves the rest in place, he'll make a confrontational move against the court as sure as tomorrow's Thursday.

Pass the popcorn

14 posted on 06/27/2012 8:13:44 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Our Constitution guarantees Americans the right of life yet Affordable Healthcare Law takes that away. Law should be struck down on this one, undebateable, issue alone.


15 posted on 06/27/2012 8:19:47 AM PDT by Boomer One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atc23

Wasn’t it Franklin R. who didn’t like the SC rulings so he single-handedly decided we needed more justices and proceeded to pack the court with 6 more of HIS judges?

I expect NO LESS from Barry.

WHERE ARE THE “OATHKEEPERS”? It’s time.


16 posted on 06/27/2012 8:23:09 AM PDT by Reagan69 (I supported Sarah Palin and all I got was a lousy DVD !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Boomer One

Good point.


17 posted on 06/27/2012 8:23:39 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
IMHO, the law will be struck down completely because the mandate can't be separated. Now we are hearing that some insurance companies will keep parts of the bill. The costs have been rising since Obamacare was passed to pay for keeping the kids on to 26 and pre existing conditions. None of the provisions in Obamacare would be impossible to keep, but the mandate would have been used to pay for it. As long as you volunteer to pay, you could have a custom package for yourself. The problem arises when you require everyone to have "your" deal.

What is desired is to lower everyone's costs to insure more people for less. Government meddling inevitably means higher costs for everyone with rationing to follow.

The only tried and true fix will include more competition, less money involved in lawsuits, and more individual control. When insurance companies have to compete for our business, they will have incentives for us to insure with them. Just as in the case of banks, when government gets out of banking, we have fees for everything and profits fall. When government gets out of banking, they advertise different benefits to attract you to their bank instead of somewhere else. If insurance had to compete for your business, then you would see more bennies for less money.

There are many options that could work, but why not pay an individual to buy insurance and allow him to keep whatever money he could save? The resulting wave of saving money would astound anyone paying attention. Just allowing people to shop around would save billions. Ask your doctor how much an upcoming procedure costs and see the turmoil that causes. They either don't know or don't care. When they quote a price, tell them you want to shop around and see the look on their face. The government doesn't care because the taxpayer pays and the insurance company doesn't care because you or your employer pays.

18 posted on 06/27/2012 8:23:57 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Why, after that abomination of a decision in the Arizona, anyone would expect Obamacare to be overturned is mystifying to me.


19 posted on 06/27/2012 8:24:01 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
For two years they(democrats) inserted ‘outs’ to this thing call the ACA. Even if struck down, there are sufficient “laws leading to rulings” in place through the various other codified laws from the stimulus to the ACA, that make it simple for the regime to go after ‘single payer system’ post ACA being struck down.

If you follow any of that...then you realize the upcoming ruling...whatever it may be...is empty and meaningless. Striking it down will trigger a whole set of curacies to begin ‘ruling’ what they want.

20 posted on 06/27/2012 8:28:05 AM PDT by EBH (Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I hope that’s the case (and we’ll know by this time tomorrow), but for now it’s just speculation.


21 posted on 06/27/2012 8:36:10 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson
The SCOTUS did right in AZ because The Constitution says immigration is Federal. The problem is Obama should be facing impeachment over refusing to enforce the law. The states shouldn't be trying to go around the Constitutional responsibility. Obama should have faced impeachment over refusing to inforce DOMA. That gave him to OK to ignore whatever laws he didn't like. I think he read the book Chavez gave him at their first meeting. We are moving closer to a dictatorship and eventual anarchy if laws mean nothing.

Perhaps a state function might be for their represitative to introduce impeachment procedings instead of trying to make state laws that could be struck down. Who could argue that the executive branch has the right to ignore passed laws?

22 posted on 06/27/2012 8:36:52 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; Bob Ireland; All

The Arizona Ruling by THE NINE SUPREMES (actually 8) has proven that we no longer have a US Constitution.

Hence, it is pointless to talk about a Court Dictate on Obama”care” being anything but a dictate of the polarized Court.

We also have a Rogue Dictator, and a Rogue Obama-Rifles Attorney General Leader.

Preference is not the issue. What the Court has already Dictated on Obama”care” will be the issue.

The further destruction of the US Constitution is the most probable dictate that the Court will hand down on Thursday, as this will be the last dictate of this past year, and hence they cowardly will release their worst dictate on their last day in session.

Since Obama”care” of ANY sort will financially destroy America, our options are limited to Congressional ABOLISHMENT of all of Obama”care,” or for we, the people, to begin the tedious process of convening peaceful State Constitutional Conventions, and splitting the former USA into multi-State Regions.

For almost 80 years we have been saddled with the failed Keynesian Economic System. It has bankrupted the US Federal Government.

The derivatives of the WW2 Wage and Price Control Dictates are as follows: Medicare, Medicaid, Romney”care” and Obama”care.”

All of these vote-buying gimmicks are funded by debt created by the failed Keynesian Economic System.

Currently this Debt is charged to those who cannot vote: our Grandchildren’s future descendants.

This Debt is the Federal Grandchildrens Tax, or FGT, to distinguish it from the FIT, or Federal Income Tax, which only 51 % of us are required to pay.

The Silent Majority is silent no more.

There will be additional calls for State Constitutional Conventions if the Republicans try to preserve or retain ANY of Obama or Romney”care.”

Obama”care” is the Death Knell for America. It must be ABOLISHED FOREVER if America is to survive.

If Obama”care” does survive, then I favor Regional Areas/Republics of the former United States of America. I think the States that the XL Pipeline will run through makes excellent sense for one Region, called The Texas Region. The Mississippi Region would be those States that the Mississippi River runs through. Pacific and Atlantic Regions are obvious, as are the Rocky Mountain States.

In this way people could vote with their feet and move to a greater or lesser degree of personal Liberty.

The Great Experiment of forcing the United States of America back into the European Feudal System began with FDR’s Social Security System and will end in failure with Obama”care.”

There is no need for armed conflict, as we have already tried that horrific method with our bloody Civil War.

Just peacefully hold State Constitutional Conventions, split up the former USA into multi State Regions, and then hold Fourth of July “Remember When Days” once a year, as we thank our lucky Stars that we in NO WAY are like Europe.

If we were a Nation of Laws, we could survive.

We, instead, have become a Nation of Lawyers, and thus survival is not possible.

Lawyers do not obey the laws, they just change their interpretation of the laws to suit themselves. For example, “Remember the Arizona Law!” would make an appropiate State Constitutional Convention poster.

During the State Constitutional Conventions and split up of the former USA, we need to designate a multi-State Region just for Lawyers. They could then Keynesian themselves to their hearts content.

The Region that I will choose will be based on “The Invisible Hand” of Samuel Adams’ Free Market, with NO safety net.

Think it over, as it will take years to complete all of the State Constitutional Conventions.

Thus, we have time to plan to do it RIGHT, (pun intended), and throw the Liberal cartons of useless Tea millstones back into the Sea of European Feudalism/Socialism that they so richly deserve.

We must design our Multi-State Regions/Republics so that the disaster of RINO-morphing, and creeping Keyneism does not occur again.

Without an effective Check and Balance System each Multi-State Region/Republic will not survive, as has been proven in the present USA by the efforts of RINO-Democrat-Liberal Agenda Media “Triangle of Doom” that we have today.

There is still hope if we can DUMP Romney by having the Delegates vote to ABSTAIN on the first Ballot in Tampa.

If Romney becomes the Nominee, Obama wins big in November, just like he did against Lame-Brain McCain in 2008, and it will be GAME ON Time for us FReepers here in the former USA.

BTW, I’m dusting off my Tri-Cornered Hat, will dig out my copies of The Federalists Papers, and for Patriotic Flair, may even make a few quill pens!

Let us build a more perfect Union! Long live the Second Republic of TEXAS!

____________

BTW, BTW, to the BIG BROTHER Lurkers: save your expensive Obamadrones for the continuous, and now SCOTUS-approved, invasion of the Mexican Drug Lords into Southern Arizona.

We will be no bother to you as we will be more peaceful, and more patriotically joyful than a GSA Convention in Las Vegas when we hold our many State Constitutional Conventions.

Y’all come by now, hear?


23 posted on 06/27/2012 8:36:52 AM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69

He wanted to add justices to the court, but this was too much for even the democrat controlled congress at the time and no such court packing occurred.


24 posted on 06/27/2012 8:39:59 AM PDT by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Those 26 or 27 states that sued better be ready for Obama’s retaliation Executive Orders.
25 posted on 06/27/2012 8:55:22 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
When they quote a price, tell them you want to shop around and see the look on their face.

That approach might work for boob jobs, but some disease states and medical conditions leave the patient with few options or room to negotiate.

I do agree with your comments on increased competition, however.

26 posted on 06/27/2012 8:55:28 AM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a filibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 21stCenturion

If SCOTUS kills the mandate but leaves the rest standing, the Health Insurance industry will gear up their SuperPACS and spring into full-on repeal mode.

They were only willing to put up with mandated free screenings, birth control and coverage for 26 year old slackers if 40 million new paying customers at gunpoint came along with it. If they aren’t getting those customers they are NOT gonna let Obama stick them with the rest of the crap sandwich.

This is why the Obama Administration went to the Court after oral arguments and filed a brief asking the Court to shut down the whole thing if they kill the mandate. Doing otherwise would turn their former allies in the health insurance industry into a very powerful and dangerous enemy.


27 posted on 06/27/2012 9:19:57 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

You say “given that roberts is writing the opinion...”

I’ve read that speculation but did not think we definitely knew that roberts is writing the opinion


28 posted on 06/27/2012 9:49:33 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/304121/my-prediction-tomorrow-s-obamacare-ruling-ed-whelan


29 posted on 06/27/2012 9:58:01 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Lack of severability should doom any document in its entirety.

However, we are talking about the government who uses convoluted reasoning to accomplish their ends no matter what.


30 posted on 06/27/2012 9:58:37 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live thnrough it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

If you can trust Roberts, and I am by no means convinced Roberts owes any loyalty to any Constitution much less our republican form of government.

From what I’ve seen of Roberts he is very much a man on the edge of supporting a despotic(boundless) government! No I do not see his “majority” opinion as necessarily a good thing, but rather the potential of an opening up his ultimate betrayer of every free American.


31 posted on 06/27/2012 11:13:33 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“Lack of severability should doom any document in its entirety.

However, we are talking about the government who uses convoluted reasoning to accomplish their ends no matter what.”

That is only on theses Federal employees good days. On their bad days they don’t seem to be concerned with any reasoning at all. We have reach the point of decay in our “Constitutional system” where they realized that their mere words are enough to rewrite the law. That they need not justify their actions in either written language, past practice, nor historic understanding.

We must come to accept that we live under a very much lawless Federal Government. A fact made perhaps all the more potent in that this Government so secure in that knowledge that it so often openly acts accordingly.


32 posted on 06/27/2012 11:23:28 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

“Lack of severability should doom any document in its entirety.

However, we are talking about the government who uses convoluted reasoning to accomplish their ends no matter what.”

That is only on theses Federal employees good days. On their bad days they don’t seem to be concerned with any reasoning at all. We have reach the point of decay in our “Constitutional system” where they realized that their mere words are enough to rewrite the law. That they need not justify their actions in either written language, past practice, nor historic understanding.

We must come to accept that we live under a very much lawless Federal Government. A fact made perhaps all the more potent in that this Government so secure in that knowledge that it so often openly acts accordingly.


33 posted on 06/27/2012 11:23:28 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

If you take the tinfoil off of your head long enough and do some reading here, you might be surprise as to why Roberts voted the way he did.


34 posted on 06/27/2012 11:33:44 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

I disagree. The state of AZ did nothing more than mirror the Federal Law (not pre-empt it) in order to cooperate with and help the federal government carry out its Constitutional responsibility. AZ was not trying to overrride, augment or obviate federal law. This ruling stinks to me of two Justices wanting to be loved by the DC set and not having the courage to do what is right.

I see the coming healthcare decision as an exercise in the ole Sandra Day O’Connor “legitimacy” escuse for cowardice. In other words, Roberts and Kennedy may believe in doing X but because X would make the Court unpopular or seen in a negative light, they will do Y in the name of preserving the Court’s legitimacy.


35 posted on 06/27/2012 11:41:00 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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