Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Florida Federal Judge Rules ‘Entire’ Health Care Law Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that the president’s health care overhaul, “Obamacare,” is unconstitutional.  U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Congress overstepped its bounds by instituting the individual mandate, but also said the entire law was unconstitutional since the individual mandate is not “severable,”. He wrote...“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and
regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here,” Vinson wrote in the 78-page ruling.
“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void,” he added.
“The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive,” he wrote.                                                                                                                                                       This is more great news for Americans.  We are starting to see how unconstitutional the Democratic Party has become. The left-wing is livid over this ruling. They are livid at the Democratic Party for not having the "constitutional" public or one payer option in the bill.  If the Democrats truly wanted a public option it would have been in their. They had enough votes to pass the bill any way they wanted. Too bad for for the Democrats because their time had come and passed to have a public option instead of the nudge that will most likely come apart in the Supreme Court. The American people voted in more Republicans then ever to stop the crazy Democratic Party. Every time a state shoots down obamacare it is a nail in the Democratic Parties coffin.

10 comments:

  1. There is a mechanism to put this on the FAST track to the Supreme Court and I would think this would occurr in this instance. I will be interest if the powers to be indeed use this method.

    "Commerce Clause" will be the focus. If Governemnt can mandate Health Insurance this Clause could also give government POWER to mandate what we eat what we drive even that we must own a house! Might seem impossible but WHY not. Government with that type POWER is NOT the answer. Just My Opinion Supreme Court vote 5-4 Repeal!
    Then Congress can make real Health Care Reform with Transparentsy that does not take Citizens rights away or virtully KILL Job Creation!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Al, your argument is based on a fallacy, the slippery slope. After Reading Judge Steeh's affirmation of the law and the Supreme Court precedent he brings up i am not entirely sold that our current Supreme Court would consider it unconstitutional.

    And to be clear i find that the decisions rendered by Vinson relies heavily not on case law, nor SC court precedence but opinions gathered outside or the courts over the years. It is telling that he uses discussions from noted conservative writers to advance his theories. Any decision in which the author uses reference books more than the actual Supreme Court is in my view fundamentally unsound.

    In stepping outside of court precedence i think the judge is guilty of activism and partisanship in his decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joe Number one Most judges are guilty of activism now, Im afraid even the Supreme Court. Why else would Politicans feel so strongly about appointments. If Supreme Court justices were confirmed on basic of Knowledge of Laws and Precednce only Confirmation would take maybe 5 minutes.

    Politics and Supreme Court is not new, FDR tried to raise the number to 13 I beleive so he could basiclly do whatever he saw fit.

    Even I a Novice Supreme Court observers doubt very seriously If Scalia and Kagan will fall on the same side of any ISSUE and its due to one thing IDEAOLOGY.

    We shall see sooner than later the Desicion of the Supreme Court and one way or the other Politics/Ideaology will be involved. It shows just how much Citizens have let their Country fall into the Hands of Politicans.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AL the "reference books" Joe refers to is the federalist papers and along with more of Madison's writings, that this judge used to make this ruling.
    So I am confident the SC will use the Federalist papers to see the clear intent of the founders on their intent of the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark, Along with the writings of Robert Bork, the noted founding father and others...

    I got to hand it to you though, you'll hold the dead James Madison's hand all the way to the grave to support your ideals but when he goes against the christian right in his writings they act like they don't know the man.

    Its a compelling story of the cognitive dissidence of the right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, i know that is off subject, but the hypocrisy just required a comment.

    but in this case under Vinson what i am seeing is that Federal power under the Commerce clause only relates to that which the right wishes to control. So in that vein you have the Bush Administration ignoring states rights on medical marijhuana only to have the largest expansion of Commerce clause power decide in their favor and give Justice Scalia the chance to contradict himself two years later.


    but in the end it doesn't come down to what your view of constitutional authority is, it comes down to what your view of "activity" is? And you conservatives made fun of Clinton for his is "IS"? defense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What "IS" means: Clinton used the word to avoid the truth plain and simple.

    What "IS" means on this Issue no matter what your ideaology will change OUR Nation forever if Government is given the POWER to Control Citizens Choice. My thoughts are still the same Lost Freedoms cannot be regained and with each Lost Freedom Government becomes STRONGER and if thats a slippery slope so be it!

    The Judical Branch will decide OUR Nations fate, and ideaology WILL play a part!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Al, actually your wrong, but you should be used to it. The actual decision as to the broad powers that Congress can regulate anything was given in a case where the Conservative administration pursued a broad expansion of Commerce Clause powers. It was Gonzales v. Raich, not the current cases. Read the decisions both for and against.

    All the judges in the affirming cases have done is follow that precedent. Sure there is some discussion about what constitutes "Activity" and the differences but nothing in their decision is activist. They took the Supreme Court decisions and applied them to what they felt was activity.

    The judges in the two cases that rules it unconstitutional ignored Supreme Court precedent and made different decisions on what they felt "activity" is. They were the most activist.

    But let me ask you this. If someone doesn't purchase health coverage and then uses the medical system and is unable to pay it does affect everyone using the system right? Just like with taxpayers or theft, the costs are passed on to the other consumers.

    So if Justice Scalia, a noted conservative, felt that things which negatively affect the ability of Congress to regulate commerce are covered under the Commerce Clause, wouldn't lack of medical insurance affect the ability of Congress to regulate Affordable Health care? (Scalia's decision paraphrased)

    Does the uninsured affect the ability of Congress to make health care affordable? Yes it does.

    So its not inactivity. Thus Judge Vinson's decision is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We have Medicade now that the Uninsured have used for How many decades? That cost has always been passed on to TAXPAYERS(Consumers). I know that system works from personnel knowledge As far as Hospital and doctor Care.

    Does are Health Care Syestem need to be Addressed,Certainly. Making it a Government Program ,Run by Government to me is not the answer. Medicare/Medicade are Trillions in Debt but instead of Addressing that this regime wants a whole new system that will give More Control to Government Less Choice for Citizens and to me thats the rub. With Nobama care WE will still have MILLIONS not paying and that cost will be passed on to WHO? Will you then say the Non Payers are Theives.

    Just beleive driving the car into the ditch with one health care system get into a new car and drive it into the same ditch solves nothing. Government does not solve problems it creates them and this to me is another Government Creation! Supreme Court I do beleive will send Nobama care back to Congress and let the real FIX to OUR Health Care system begin. We will never agree on this and thats a FACT!

    ReplyDelete

Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.