Today Florida Judge Roger Vinson may deliver another blow to Obamacare
Federal Judge Roger Vinson looks like he might issue his Obamacare ruling today.
The federal government does not have the authority to compel citizens to purchase things.
The unconstitutional and reckless law Democrats rammed through Congress in 2009, without many of them even reading it, is predicated on the federal government forcing people against their will to buy things.
As we’ve said here before time and again, if Obamacare is allowed to stand, then where do Democrats stop in terms of forcing people to buy things?
Do you honestly believe they wouldn’t use this precedent to require citizens purchase other goods from private companies…such as goods that are made by union shops so that the unions get richer, which means more contributions to the Democrat Party?
Hopefully, Vinson will rein in this madness today.
It won’t be the end of Obamacare, but it will be yet another rebuke that reaffirms the belief that, no, the federal government CANNOT force you to buy things against your will.
It was never given that ability, it does not have that ability, and it will never have that ability.
Awaiting Vinson’s take on this with great interest.
© 2011, Kevin DuJan. All rights reserved.
Also Recommended:
- Second federal judge talks about Obamacare being unconstitutional, since federal government CANNOT force citizens to buy commercial products…YET
- Virginia judge rules that federal government has no constitutional right to impose Obamacare mandate on Americans
- Great Merciful Zeus: Blue Shield of California raising rates by 59% because of Obamacare
- QUESTION: If Muslims don't have to buy into Obamacare because "it offends their religion", then why doesn't someone start a new "religion" that ALSO prohibits buying into Obamacare?
- Oh SNAP! ObamaSoetoro campaign disinvites indicted personal friend Kwame Kilpatrick from Convention, after one judge gave him an ankle bracelet to go to Denver, but then his OTHER judge banned him from traveling! TRIPLE SNAP!
Latest Buzz:
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
I just heard something on Fox that the ruling could come down at any minute. Stay tuned.
heard Megyn Kelly; the judge ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional and since it will be difficult to removed just this part from the whole health care law, therefore decided the entire obamacare as void..
Just heard this @ 3:00 pm EST…Judge rules ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional. Up to the Supremes now.
But here’s my question. Even if the Supreme Court rules that ObamaCare/Mandate is somehow constitutional, won’t the Repubs in the House still keep defunding it and trying to get rid of it?
I would hope that the Repubs keep going with Repeal and Replace no matter what the Supreme Court rules…right?
DeMint says all 47 Repubs are on line to repeal O’care in the senate. This will either die in the SCOTUS or by referendum in the 2012 elections. 23 Dem senators are up for re-elction in 2012. 47 + 23 = 70! (Not that all 23 will vote to save their jobs, but they may!)
and he did…void! just the first step to getting to the supreme court…but still…
It’s official: http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/breaking-federal-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional
Now I read this somewhere this morning, and correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t this put a big spoke in the wheel of implementing Obamacare? Doesn’t it stop its implementation until the Supreme Court can rule on it?
It declared the entire bill unconstitutional so that means everything stops(except what’s already out there) unless another court reverses that order
That’s my understanding Doris. Because of the intricacies of this law, disabiliting one part of it causes the rest of this Rube Goldberg method to mangling healthcare to come down. I don’t think there is any doubt that this will make it to the SOCUS because this man’s ego will not accept that his plan can be wrong. In the mean time, I hope this wh continues to demonstrate their contempt towards the SOCUS.
Thanks! I just wanted to make sure…
This legal decision was long anticipated but welcome news. people that possess rudimentary reading skills and a scintilla of common sense can understand that this legislation was unconstitutional. An appeal to the Supreme Court will be expected, Pelosi and Reid as well as their master would like to be able to bribe and buy the votes of the Justices just as they bribed and pressured Senators and Congressmen to pass this horrbible health legislation before it was aired publicly.
I recommend listening to Mark Levin tonight, or if you cannot, you can always listen at your convenience. Anytime there are key legal decisions, I like to get his perspective since he explains rulings in laymans terms.
http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930
Here’s part of the decision….”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.”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/31/florida-district-court-rules-against-health-care-reform.aspx
Money quote! (with hat tip from Judge to TEA parties!)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND MUST BE COMPLETELY VOIDED! WE WON! BIG TIME!!!
To quote Plugs Biden…”this is a big f_ck_ng deal”.
from what I have read, Judge Vinson is a scholar of the Constitution and the true history of America. He has quoted Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, the Federalist Papers and more. I don’t care who the next judge is to see this. In order to rule against it he will have to completely void the Constitution and the history of the United States. This is going to be some interesting!
Hmm I wonder who put the 404 on it ???
Try this direct link. It is the one I used and still works for me.
View Judge Vinson’s 78-page ruling.
Focus on the beginning, the Severability issue, and the Conclusion.
This is just a first step. I think it now will go to the Federal District Court panel, then the full Federal district court, then maybe to SCOTUS. The “void” can be stayed until that time. Luckily, this district is fairly conservative. But excellent news to get started.
Prof Jacobsen has up a good post on the subject:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/florida-judge-rules-against-obamacare.html
I am expecting that Prof Charles Rowley will do the same.
I never understood how they justified the mandate by saying “But people have to buy car insurance!”
I agree because there is no comparison. If I do not own or drive a car, then I do not have to buy car insurance… ergo the compulsion to purchase car insurance… or in this country specifically 3rd party injury insurance…. you need to own a car first.
This was big news on Fox. I flipped over to MSNBC and there was nothing. At 4 when Cavuto was coming on,that was his headline,MSNBC had Dylan Radigan on,he didn’t even mention it in his top news items. Maybe they reported it later,but they certainly tried to downplay it.
There are some really good comments over at The Corner. This judge is a Reagan appointee, thank you President Reagan!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258484/florida-judge-strikes-down-ientiretyi-obamacare-daniel-foster
“Wow! Impressive ruling. I loved the analogy with regard to the individual mandate about forcing home ownership and mortgages on those that choose not to participate in the mortgage market as a mechanism for “stabilizing the system and protecting it”. I also like his argumentum ad historium with respect to the idea that the Founding Fathers would never have conceived of a government where the people are forced to buy something having just lived through the tax revolts against the British East India Company…BRILLIANT!! (And a major kick in the hackey-sack to The One!)
Also, I love the humility that it used in declaring the entire law stricken because of lack of severability. That is, not because Judge Vinson thinks the law is wrong BUT rightly because a judge should not be in charge of re-working a law passed by the Congress. Again, BRILLIANT!!”
“LOL – Judge Vinson nails it on page 42 of ruling and rubs it in with reference to the Tea Party….
“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.”
“this is a stronger opinion than the other two District Court options that stuck down ObamaCare. Heck, prior to engaging in his analysis, the Judge does such a great job explaining the history of the Commerce Clause that a law student could use his opinion as a primer for exams.
The money quote is @ page 42. Basically, the Judge finds that inactivity is not interstate commerce, if it were, then Congress could regulate anything. This would have made the very idea of enumerated powers “in vain,” since there would be no limits on federal power, which couldn’t have been the original meaning, or why would the Framers have bothered to have enumerated powers in the first place rather than just granting unlimited police powers to the federal government?
Having found that the Commerce Clause does not encompass “[sic] inactivity,” the judge finds next finds that “failure to purchase” health insurance is not “activity” (and thus the Individual mandate is outside of Congress’ commerce powers). The Judge next dismantles the argument that the Health Care market is unique, noting that there are many markets that people can’t “Opt out” of (He uses the housing market as one example), and many problems are unique, so uniqueness can’t be a limiting principle. The Judge then rejects that defendant’s argument that the individual’s “economic decision” not to buy health insurance is “Economic Activity,” again noting that rationale’s unlimited applicability, since every decision has economic implications (He uses the examples of the decision to buy a car, a house, food, etc.).”
now, time for Levin to weigh in on the ruling…I think I’ll have a beverage
I find it interesting that Yahoo doesn’t have it as part of their scrolling headlines… anybody think the media is huddling to come up with an appropriate spin or wait to bring it up when Egypt isn’t dominating the cycle?
I think the repeal of the whole bill is wrong since there are some very good provisions in it such as the one saying that nobody can be denied health insurance based on a pre-existing condition. The repeal of this particular provision may cause many problems to people diagnosed with cancer or other serious medical conditions.