Obamacare Is Void, Lawless Administration Doesn’t Care

That’s the bottom line where Judge Roger Vinson’s opinion on the State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of HHS is concerned. Judge Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida yesterday became the second federal judge to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate.

Drawing on the precedent of the original Boston Tea Party was not only valid, but whether intentional or not, was a nice kick in the pants balls to the political Left that non-stop demonized the ‘tea party’ of today. Attaching a vulgar sexual act to them.  ? Maybe projecting what really turns them on.

Judge Vinson writes . . .

“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’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.”

Like Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Vinson also found that Section 1501 of the act, which forces all Americans to buy government-approved health insurance policies, “falls outside the boundary of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers.”

But then Judge Vinson went even further, concluding that “the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.” Accordingly, Vinson concluded: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” {emphasis added}

Judge Vinson further explained the problem with the mandate part of the bill.

For the reasons stated, 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.30

And to that point, Judge Vinson expounded on what is faulty with a federal mandate by using then Senator Barack Obama’s own words. Oh ya gotta love it. {Free cheesesteak for Judge Vinson.} Judge Vinson continues . . .

30 On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do. Indeed, 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.” See Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html.

{great research Judge}

Here is Obama’s quote in context. He was responding to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s idea of mandating health insurance . . .

OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

Oh what a difference a couple years make.

Refusing to take NO for an answer the administration intends to ignore the Judges ruling that the legislation is VOID. Because the judge did “not order the government to stop implementing the law, a senior administration source said ‘implementation will proceed at pace.'” Legally speaking, when the legislation is considered VOID by the judiciary, the other branches have nothing to go on to proceed. They have to either appeal it or ask for a stay. Tomorrow, President Obama ought to request the senate to repeal the bill and start over. Don’t hold your breath for that to happen. Ignoring the ruling just highlights how lawless this administration is. It is the Chicago way. It’s what community organizers do.

2 thoughts on “Obamacare Is Void, Lawless Administration Doesn’t Care”

  1. I don’t know what part of “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void” you do not understand? The judge does not have to enjoin the administration from proceeding. The judge respects the separation of powers. The judge fulfilled his duties and responsibilities by ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare. It is up to the administration to follow the law. That’s one.

    Number two is, no matter how many (there were two) judges have ruled that Obamacare is constitutional, this federal judge is the first and only one to declare the whole act as unconstitutional. That is due to the absence of a non-severability clause. That’s the way the bill was written and that’s the way the judge dealt with it.

    Number three, addressing the lawlessness of this administration. If just one judge rules that a law, any law, is unconstitutional, the administration does not have the ability to choose between court decisions. It can’t say, “Well, I’m gonna ignore Judge Vinson. I’m gonna go back. We’re gonna obey and deal with these other two.” They have to either appeal it or ask for a stay.

  2. you are such a dishonest writer. the judge did no enjoin his decision. the law is not void, what about the 14 other judgements in favour of the law? this type of writing breeds cynicism with voters ignore rulings you don’t like and trumpet that of a district Reagan appointed judge as gospel

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *