Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional

[verrip1]

From CNN news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/31/federal-judge-says-key-parts-of-health-care-reform-unconstitutional/

"Judge Roger Vinson, in a 78-page ruling, dismissed the key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - the so-called "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face stiff penalties.

"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," Vinson wrote.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time
when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.' " "

[ed1066]

it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'

The next time Democrats go for another fascist, anti-freedom power grab, they are going to title the bill "We love puppies and rainbows and anyone who strikes this down is mean"

[deziloooooo]

I am watching fox..Yes Krickett, Fox.. , and they had a woman on commenting on it , and she brought out, her opinion, they left out something that would allow parts to be left off if found to be a violation of the Constitution, which was just sloppy construction of the bill, what with all the attorneys in Congress and the lawyers they have on staff.
Didn't really understand it all, but the gist is it , the Bill, was sloppy construction ..shouldn't have been . her opinion of course but thought I would bring up.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

<<The next time Democrats go for another fascist, anti-freedom power grab, they are going to title the bill "We love puppies and rainbows and anyone who strikes this down is mean">>

They will slip "child protection" in there too.

[verrip1]

Sloppy construction, huh? I wouldn't be surprised if it did have sloppy construction considering how they rushed it through, allowing no one an opportunity to carefully read and understand it.

But, alas, sloppy construction is NOT what the judge said in his ruling. He declared it to be unconstitutional because it attempted to require people to buy insurance, and that exceeds the authority of Congress, as many constitutional scholars have said ever since it was passed. The judge specifically said that the error was so egregious that he was declaring the entire bill unconstitutional, not just a part of it.

Suspicions confirmed.

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

<<But, alas, sloppy construction is NOT what the judge said in his ruling.>>


Yes, it was. He said that because Congress failed to insert a severability clause, just one unconstitutional part (the mandate) renders the whole thing unconstitutional.

[verrip1]

Here is the complete ruling.

dl.dropbox.com/u/3174287/Opinion%20-%202.pdf

I read it with reference to your comment above, mdw.

I refer to pages 67 to 70, where the judge speaks to the issue of the language of the Act and to the intent of Congress. Because severability was in an earlier version of the Act and was later removed, the judge found that it was the clear intent of Congress that the Act not be severable. That is a far cry from saying the Act as a whole had sloppy construction or that sloppy construction led to the lack of severability.

[nalto]

Why does this judge have to be so mean? Doesn't he know that to help others, some people just have to give up some of their rights?

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

<<That is a far cry from saying the Act as a whole had sloppy construction or that sloppy construction led to the lack of severability.>>


I see what you mean. No, the judge didn't use the words "sloppy construction". It is, in an indirect way, still true in layman's terms.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 31, 2011 18:35:49 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

<<That is a far cry from saying the Act as a whole had sloppy construction or that sloppy construction led to the lack of severability.>>


I see what you mean. No, the judge didn't use the words "sloppy construction". It is, in an indirect way, still true in layman's terms.

I didn't say the Judge used those words, the woman commentating on the ruling on Fox suggested in fact I think used those words or similer and suggested it was just sloppy work, construction of the bill..very apparent to any one who understand how these bills are written.

Not "several " what ever that means but I assume is important.

[fairlycrazy23]

Normally in large bill with many parts, you would want to insert language that would allow unconstitutional parts to be severed from the law, however, the mandate was so integral I'm not sure in this case it would be appropriated. To me Judges should not be able to arbitrarily allow parts a law to be legal and parts not to be because that is not what was passed by the Congress.. It is the same reason I am against the line item veto.

They need to go back to the heart of the matter, and ask the question what is wrong with health care in the United States, but also what is right, and what the Congress can do to address it.

[privateinvestor]

In the decision, Vinson writes:

"... 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.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."



You can read the decision here.
msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/PPM153_vin.pdf

[privateinvestor]

You can bet now the long knives will be out after Judge Vinson. The White House, Justice Dept and the cronies on MSNBC will try to demean this ruling by Judge Vinson who ruled the entire Health Care Bill is Unconstitutional.

And will the Dems just ignore this judge and as Nancy Pelosi said this health care bill is one of her proudest accomplishments since she rammed it through congress along party lines before anyone had a chance to read it. Although many dems who voted for it now probably have second thoughts or have been tossed out of congress last November in the 02 November Democratic shellacking.

[verrip1]

I have no doubt he'll be accused of being a racist with ties to violent terrorist organizations like the Tea Party.

[privateinvestor]

Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow will be competing tonight on MSNBC to see which one of them can degrade Judge Vinson the most and be just like their ex bud Keith Olbermann..

[nalto]

Jan 31, 2011 19:15:10 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

I have no doubt he'll be accused of being a racist with ties to violent terrorist organizations like the Tea Party.

Obviously. And Obama will say that the judge acted "stupidly."

[ed1066]

And Obama will say that the judge acted "stupidly."

Yup. And now he's "the enemy" and needs to ride "in the back" of the bus...

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 31, 2011 19:15:10 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

I have no doubt he'll be accused of being a racist with ties to violent terrorist organizations like the Tea Party.

If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting as was done in the Act that compelling the actual transaction is itself commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce [see Act 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 31, 2011 19:13:14 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

You can bet now the long knives will be out after Judge Vinson. The White House, Justice Dept and the cronies on MSNBC will try to demean this ruling by Judge Vinson who ruled the entire Health Care Bill is Unconstitutional.

And will the Dems just ignore this judge and as Nancy Pelosi said this health care bill is one of her proudest accomplishments since she rammed it through congress along party lines before anyone had a chance to read it. Although many dems who voted for it now probably have second thoughts or have been tossed out of congress last November in the 02 November Democratic shellacking.

Just now, on CNN a commentator said the Judge found one part of the bill, in his judgement , unconstitutional , thus threw out the whole bill because of the lack of the that one left out option.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jan 31, 2011 19:45:53 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Just now, on CNN a commentator said the Judge found one part of the bill, in his judgement , unconstitutional , thus threw out the whole bill because of the lack of the that one left out option.

Not all bills have parts that can be severed, the mandate was extremely important to the bill, I don't think it can stand without it.
Speaking of the mandate:

"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 his 78-page ruling Monday.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...now if we can have income tax ruled unconstitutional, too, then that would be a happy day...

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 1, 2011 9:37:22 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...now if we can have income tax ruled unconstitutional, too, then that would be a happy day...

Good luck with that..
If they had simply made it a new tax instead of the mandate it would have been constitutional.

[Deleted]

"He declared it to be unconstitutional because it attempted to require people to buy insurance"

Does that mean it is unconstitution for states to require individuals to purchase auto insurance?

[billisonboard]

Feb 1, 2011 10:51:43 GMT -5 @txsbbtc said:

"He declared it to be unconstitutional because it attempted to require people to buy insurance"

Does that mean it is unconstitution for states to require individuals to purchase auto insurance?

No one is required to buy auto insurance.

[pappyjohn99]

Does that mean it is unconstitution for states to require individuals to purchase auto insurance?

No, auto insurance laws are state mandates, not federal. And you may choose not to drive, eliminating the requirement for auto insurance.

[billisonboard]

Feb 1, 2011 11:06:10 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

Does that mean it is unconstitution for states to require individuals to purchase auto insurance?

No, auto insurance laws are state mandates, not federal. And you may choose not to drive, eliminating the requirement for auto insurance.

Plus, you are not required by any government to cover yourself or your car (although a finance company might require you to do so). You are only required to buy insurance to protect those you might crash into.

[ChiTownVenture]

Two other Judges felt that they could rule the individual mandate unconstitutional without throwing out the entire bill.

In other cases, a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional but left standing other parts of the law. In Michigan, the argument concerning the "individual mandate" -- the central tenet that requires Americans to start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty -- was thrown out by another federal judge.

Read more: www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debat/#ixzz1Cj3Giw3W

[deziloooooo]

Feb 1, 2011 11:05:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Feb 1, 2011 10:51:43 GMT -5 @txsbbtc said:

"He declared it to be unconstitutional because it attempted to require people to buy insurance"

Does that mean it is unconstitution for states to require individuals to purchase auto insurance?

No one is required to buy auto insurance.

I think they do in most States..a minimum...to have a car registered..car loan...that some then allow it to lapse..still the obligation is there.

[fairlycrazy23]

Feb 1, 2011 12:33:37 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Feb 1, 2011 11:05:34 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

No one is required to buy auto insurance.

I think they do in most States..a minimum...to have a car registered..car loan...that some then allow it to lapse..still the obligation is there.

First as has been said requiring auto insurance is within the states power since "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
But more to the point, the State does not require your inaction to buy something, so only if you buy and license a car to drive on public streets do you need to insure it to protect others not even yourself.

[ChiTownVenture]

No one is required to buy auto insurance.

How about the requirement to register for the draft. All men between 18-25 are required to register, if you "do not register you could be prosecuted and, if convicted, fined up to $250,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison".

You are required to submit a valid mailing address, does this mean that you are required to have a home or PO Box?

What if you are homeless and cannot afford a PO Box how do you register? Is the US Government forcing men to go out a purchase a home, or PO Box? Is this constitutional?