Skip to comments.ObamaCare ruling [VANITY Question!]
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!!!
Because they can. Now, back to work comrade!
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.
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
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
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.
Sure hope you’re right. I guess we will see tomorrow.
How do we know that Roberts is writing the opinion?
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.
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.
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)
Pass the popcorn
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.
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.
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.
Why, after that abomination of a decision in the Arizona, anyone would expect Obamacare to be overturned is mystifying to me.
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.