Posted on 12/13/2010 9:51:11 AM PST by Kartographer
A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Affordable” care, that you must buy or go to jail act.
If that is true, you're right. I thought that you had to purchase something from one of the insurance companies in the exchange, but you get to choose which one.
The SS analogy does not work because you have an option of how those taxes are invested. You are not forced to purchase anything from a specific vendor even though you are required to pay the tax.
Assuming we're talking about a partial (or full) SS privatization plan that requires you to invest in a certain class of securities or something, it looks at least something like being required to purchase an insurance policy from a list of vendors that meets certain criteria.
I don't like either one of them. I'm just trying to think through legally the ramifications of a decision either way. And the problem is that this whole distinction between the "tax" power and the power to do things directly that is at the heart of this seems artificial and extra-constitutional to me. "We can tax you, and do whatever we want with your money. We just can't tell you what to do with it before we actually take it." The real issue should be what is being mandated, not on who theoretically controls the money, because in either case, the government actually controls the money anyway.
You say that like it's a bad thing. This is splendid news.
That’s a good first step.
But how many of the 1000 some odd appeals are we going to win?
There is no severability clause in the bill. However, only one part was struck down. See post #84.
You are correct of course. The court will not overturn Obamacare because then they will have to revisit all the other unconstitutional power grabs like social security and medicare.
To a lot of the nutless black-robed maggots, Stare decisis—precidence is more important than Originalism.
I hope I’m wrong. It’s the Kennedy court. Does he have the brass ones to reverse 60 years on unconstitutional law?
To put a STOP SIGN in this Socialist fork in the road?
EXCELLENT NEWS!!!
What’s the process now? I would think the Feds will appeal this decision? I’m just curious how long it will take before the insurance companies can go back to doing business as before (although I have a feeling that perhaps my premiums will NOT go back down???).
Its a step in the right direction, but if 2 crooked liberal hack judges have upheld 0-care, what will happen? The bill is clearly unconstitutional.
Well, I hope I'm wrong. The only real hope is that they focus on the "mandate" as somehow being constitutionally different from establishing a program directly with tax dollars. Oddly, though I think this law should be unconstitutional, focusing on this "mandate" angle that doesn't appear to have any particularly constitutional basis would mean we're inventing one bogus constitutional doctrine to kill another.
Makes my head hurt.
Obamacare Endgame: Doctors Will be Fined or Jailed if they Put Patients First by Dr. Elaina George
LINK
Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
LINK
OBAMACARE’S LETHAL THIRD RAIL SHOCK TO COME
LINK
Toll-Free number to the Congressional Switchboard
(866) 338-1015
202-224-6121 DeMint
202-225-3021 Pence
202-225-6205 Boehner
202-225-2331 Bachmann
I said at the time this passed that the most powerful man in America is a Kennedy.
Not John, Robert or Ted the Dead Kennedys....
The Kennedy on the SCOTUS.
“I believe right now the battle of our time is the battle of liberty against the overreach of the federal government,” he says. “I wouldn’t pick any other four-year period to be in this office.” Ken Cuccinelli
An interesting biographical article about Ken (with pictures).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304025.html
Excuse me, but where did I say I was going to give in because 5 people told me to do so? If the courts rule against us, we tell the Congress and Senate that we don’t care how the courts ruled and to repeal the Obamacare bill because if they don’t, we will make sure their political careers are over. That’s a far cry from “giving in.” That’s giving the finger to the courts and demanding the politicians listen to us.
I meant you in the generic sense. Sorry you mistook my comment. And I’m with you, as in personally, I’m ready to keep the fight going. I’m sick and tired of the rulers.
Let’s hope he’s upheld. Federal power needs to be reigned in.
It is nothing new to have judges who “read the election returns” as Mr Dooley said.
But having these battles fought in court rather than on the battlefield prevents civil war.
"Today Judge Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare: 1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United State Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise; 2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers; and 3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.
"Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama Administration and for the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still have meaning. Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several amicus briefs in this case, at the request of the Commonwealth, and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.
"It is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry. Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad, and General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this matter. We look forward to continuing to work with him."
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.