Southern Land and Title
DRN Title Search
Register
Log In
Forget your Password?

Home
Directory
Bulletins
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Links
Classifieds
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise
FAQ
Privacy Policy


Blurbs from the Bossman

Federal Judge Declares "ObamaCare" Unconstitutional
by Scott Perry | 2011/02/01 |

A federal judge yesterday ruled in favor of 26 state governors and attorneys general (mostly Republicans) who have filed suit against the Obama administration, saying that the recently passed Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. But administration officials say they will move forward despite the decision.

Blurbs from the Bossman ::

The decision, handed down by Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, cites the mandate that all persons carry health coverage as the chief reason for the ruling, according to an article on abcnews.go.com.

In a footnote to the 78-page ruling, Judge Vinson included a statement from then-candidate Obama:

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,’”

The Court's rationale was based mostly upon Jeffersonian notions of limitations upon federal power.  Not surprisingly, administration officials called Judge Vinson's analysis "thoroughly odd and unconventional", saying that the judge's "surpassingly curious reading" calls the entire decision into question.  White House officials have publicly vowed to continue to implement the new law despite the ruling.  If they do, according to constitutional lawyer Mark Levin, the administration may find itself in contempt of court.

“It does not matter that two other Federal judges ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. A Federal judge has issued a sweeping ruling that the individual mandate destroys the complicated nature of this statute. So he ruled the entire statue unconstitutional . That’s the ruling the Obama Administration must confront, that’s the ruling it must deal with. It has one alternative and one alternative only, to appeal it. It cannot defy a federal judge’s ruling and once again I want to encourage the litigants in this case, if they continue to implement this, that they go right back in front of this judge with a draft for a contempt order"

This is but another example of how this administration picks and chooses which laws it wants to obey.  One thing is for sure, this is far from over...
 




Rating: 

568 words | 2411 views | 5 comments | log in or register to post a comment


States Going Their Own Way

It should also be noted that in addition to unconstitutional rulings of the Obama Health Care Freedom Act and 27 states suing there are  a number of states considering "nullification".

Idaho, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming -- are considering "nullification" bills. The main premise behind nullification contends the states, not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the final authority when Congress and the President act unconstitutionally.

Idaho seems the closest to actually passing a nullification bill. There's been a lot of speeches denouncing federal encroachment on states’ rights and a few feckless resolutions which are more loud noise than substance.

But as this makes it way to the U.S. Supreme Court it would be a monumental showdown if a substantial number of states "nullified" ObamaCare and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it!!

There a very good book I recommend for the history of nullification. The title is, " Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century". by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Nullification was conceived by Thomas Jefferson and as Woods describes, "the Federal Government cannot be permitted to hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation or the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, or it would continue to grow, regardless of elections...."

But as was stated in the initial post, "One thing is for sure, this is far from over..."

 


 

 

 
by Wyatt Bell | 2011/02/01 | log in or register to post a reply

so, one judge doesn't like a particular law and finds a way to rule it unconstitutional...

...isn't that just the sort of the same legislating from the bench that the right wingers always gripe about?

Funny how the right-wingers do not mind this kind of judicial activism when it suits their purposes-- Mark Levin being amongst the first to moan and gripe about that sort of ruling! 

So the Obama haters found a friendly court to indulge their ax-grinding... big deal.  Wake me up when the Supreme Court rules on it, because you know that this will be appealed.  In the meantime, there is no reason for the government to completely halt dead in its tracks because of this ruling. 

Mark Levin's hypocrisy shows when he asks for an order of contempt.  For instance, I didn't see the Levin and the right wingers calling for an immediate end to Don't Ask Don't Tell when a District Court Judge ruled the law unconstitutional.  And in that case, what did the Obama Administration do?  They didn't just use the one court ruling to defy the law that was on the books, even though they wanted the law gone.  They asked Congress to repeal the law, and it did so.  That's how you do things the right way.  The Republicans don't have the votes to repeal the health care law, so they are trying to do it via back-channel means through their allies in the judiciary.

Obama's a consitutional lawyer, too, by the way, just like the hack Mark Levin purports himself to be.

 

 
by Slade Smith | 2011/02/02 | log in or register to post a reply

It is an interesting decision...

The case was actually decided on the basis that Congress did not have the authority to pass the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause.  The Commerce Clause only allows Congress to regulate "activity" in interstate commerce, and the Judge found that the deciding not to purchase health insurance was not an "activity."  It was passive inactivity

The Judge did a nice job of explaining the history of the Commerce Clause.  It was a very well written opinion.  However, it rests upon a factual determination that the Supreme Court could disagree with, eg. is the economic decision not to purchase health insurance now, sufficient activity to fall within Congress' Commerce Clause authority?

The Judge did acknowledge that this decision has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, mainly because those who forego health insurance who later need health care cannot be denied treatment and the expense is passed on to the rest of us.  He just did not find this to be enough to require a mandate that everyone purchase health care.

I am usually in favor of the courts limiting Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.  I think it has already been expanded way too far.  However, President Obama was elected primarily based on his promise to "fix" our health care system, which will one day collapse if nothing is done.  He has proposed a solution - but it can only work if everyone has coverage.  Otherwise, as the number of those without insurance increases, the rest of us will not be able to afford coverage. 

 
by Robert Franco | 2011/02/02 | log in or register to post a reply

Thanks For Your Comments, Everyone

You've all raised some very good points and I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and weigh in on this.

 
by Scott Perry | 2011/02/03 | log in or register to post a reply

On Medical Car Support

While there is a need for some kind of health support, we still need to make sure that it is really in line with the greatest number of people. Not just for the satisfaction of the few.

 --Y. Bonlingo--

 

 
by Yusni Bonlingo | 2013/06/30 | log in or register to post a reply
Blurbs from the Bossman

 

Thoughts, Observations
and Ruminations of an Independent Title Examiner Living & Working in the "Steel Buckle of the Rust Belt."

 

Links

Recent Comments

Relevant changes to the Act are items 2,3,4 and 5 (bold). To stress Scott's point, the lien must be...
by ted mullucey
Under Pennsylvania law, delinquent property taxes are considered Municipal Liens. "Municipal Liens...
by Scott Perry
I haven't read the amendment or new law, but from what you've said, it appears a county   ...
by john gault
“Act 93, originally House Bill 388, only changed how municipalities reduce property&nbs...
by Scott Perry
This is a major change to Pennsylvania law - up to now, if a lien was recorded as a municipal lien, ...
by Elizabeth Helman
While there is a need for some kind of health support, we still need to make sure that it is real...
by Yusni Bonlingo
Your acknowledgement that “the exception proves the rule” is a prima fascie af...
by Scott Perry
So exactly where do you stand on the issue of professional athletes sharing their sex...
by Scott Perry
Categories

     
    © 2007, Source of Title.