Posted on 01/31/2011 12:06:59 PM PST by Marty62
Edited on 01/31/2011 12:19:03 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
That was my mistake. I was taking that information from a previous post and did not look back at it closly. I’ll read slower next time.
She referred to the “Individual Responsibility” clause in the Act, not the Constitution. The “IR” clause was struck down. Read 326 again.
No I am not saying that the so called Slaughter Rule (deeming something Passed that hadn’t been voted on) and other manipulations the Dems tried at the time were significant because they were to no avail. The Congress ended up having to have the House pass the Senate version to avoid a Conference Committee which would have had to have the support of the other house already barely hanging on for any changes made in conference.
The lack of the severability clause was discussed in the ruling and noted as telling but in and of itself did not require the Judge to find the whole law unconstitutional. The fact that the law would not work without the mandate (as argued by the Feds) was the main issue, the historical legislative record that the clause was omitted in the final voted version was viewed as intent confirming the fact it won’t work without the mandate, and the intent and belief of the legislating body that it won’t work without it all as confirmed by the Feds in argueing for its necessity.
The lack of a severability clause, in and of itself, does not automatically require the judge to throw out the whole law — never has, never will — and the judge in the ruling explains that if he could rule narrowly and throw out a single clause he would be prone to do that but that is not the case here.
I can’t copy and paste from the ruling but if you go to the ruling link on the previous page and get to the last six pages, the whole issue is laid out in detail in the ruling.
You misunderstood me. I was saying that the WHITE HOUSE was making the claim that the act was Constitutional under the IR clause. I did not say that it was constitutional because of it.
Much appreciated.
Thank you for the explanation. You HAVE to be an Attorney!:-)
No she will not.
Agreed. This is only the first step.
The 11th Circuit will probably issue a stay and hear the appeal. It’ll ultimately end up before the Supremes.
Yup......Cross your fingers!
No, I am not an attorney. I write, amend, or issue a lot and contracts and have learned from those I employ as needed.
A lot of this is just going to the difficult documents and reading through them carefully. We won’t know the case law they cite, but they make clear why they cite it and we can look at how their whole analysis is crafted.
Twnety years ago when I tried to read a lot of founding era writers like Burke, Smith and Adams it was tough. But I kept at it and they become more understandable with exposure.
satan always overplays his hand.
What I am concerned about now is that I don’t think we should wait for the Supremes to rule. I think a 2012 President must agree to sign a repeal. That is the only sure way to put a stake in this vampires heart.
You must be psychic!
I don't see how that's possible. Unconstitutional for one, is unconstitutional for all.
Until some higher court rules otherwise, Obamacare is null and void throughout the land.
They will bitch and complain how this "legislating from the bench" won't fly.
But when THEY do it, it's ok. See how that works?
I understand (and am quite sympathetic with) your interpretation, actually, but the reality of the situation is we’ve got a lot of work to do convincing lawyers and judges that “yes” really means “yes” and “no” really means “no” — and that “Congress Shall Make No Law” means “Congress Shall MAKE NO LAW” — etc., etc. . .
Though not a legal justification for the ruling in and of itself, the judge who found the health care law unconstitutional in its entirely used Obama’s own words against him in the final analysis, adding insult to injury:
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.
The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but whether it has the power to compel the purchase of insurance.
The White House — which is attempting to take over the health care industry, Constitution-be damned — called the ruling “judicial over-reaching.” They do love their over-reaching activist judges… unless it doesn’t go their way. The Obama administration accusing somebody of “over-reaching” is like Charlie Sheen saying you’re overdoing it on the partying.
And the extra funny part? Judge Vinson is a Ronald Reagan appointee. How ya lovin’ The Gipper now, Barack?
dougpowers.com
Yes, I understand, they go to the ER when they have an emergency condition. You can be awfully sick without having an emergency.
For example, an ulcer. They don’t have to treat your ulcer until it tears a hole in your stomach. Then they will have a look at it.
For example, a sore that won’t heal on your foot because you have diabetes. When the gangrene climbs up your leg, they’ll take care of it.
For example, if you have a neurological disorder and you keep choking on things you swallow, they’ll take care of you when you’re choking, but not before.
They don’t treat cancer, depression, heart disease...until it’s an emergency.
The moochers are getting a lot of free rides from the taxpayers, that is true. But poverty still shortens lives, and this constant claim of free medical care for the poor is utter nonsense.
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.