We told them so but they were so much smarter. Some of them relied on the “Commerce clause” and some on the “Good and Welfare clause”, but in the end they probably read as much of the Constitution as they did the Health Care Reform bill.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the reform law’s so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.
“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. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution,” the judge ruled.
Unfortunately, it’s going to suck being Judge Roger Vinson for the next few months as the media has already declared his decision partisan, rather than Constitutional… you know, like the Democrats did last March when they passed the bill in the first place.
I just finished reading the entire judgment (all 78 pages) and the basis for the ruling that the individual mandate is not severable, is because (partly) the act is 2700 pages and too many sections rely on it to work.
The reason the individual mandate is not severable is because in the 2700 pages they did not include a severability clause. This means that if part of the law is unconstitutional, then the entire law goes down. However, Eric is right. The entire scheme depended on forcing people to buy insurance in order for it to work, so maybe it wasn’t an oversight. I guess they were just hoping that no one would notice that it was unconstitutional.
well in the ruling the judge stated that even in the absence of a severability clause, a judge can still sever a part of the law if that part was deemed unconstitutional.
If you have an hour or so to spare then read the entire ruling here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905280/vinsonruling1-31-11
Welcome to our courts, which usually ignore Justice Marshall’s decision that,
“The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Our judges make decisions, which they feel are justice, depending on their political beliefs. Most have delusions that they become sanctified and all-wise by their achieving their office. Lord Acton’s famous quote describes them and their heresy best, “All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. …there is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
The hardly visible sign over our courthouses has been modified from Dante’s entrance to Hell’s, ‘Abandon all hope, ye who enter here,” to “Abandon all hope of justice by law and pray that the decision is only arbitrary and not based upon the exchange of money or favors by your adversary.”
He also made a point to distinguish between active and passive activity. Apparently, it is illegal to coerce an individual who does not operate a motor vehicle to purchase auto insurance or maintain a compensatory trust fund. That’s good to know, if and when I decide to stop driving.
There is also the matter of a penalty which is a tax which is a penalty. The unholy trinity of the progressive establishment. Their decision to hedge their bet may have complicated their agenda.
It seems that the left-wing attempted to classify living as a liability, which correlates perfectly with their pro-choice agenda. Apparently, neither the devaluation of human life, or the progressive involuntary exploitation of individuals of dignity, is high on their list, and may even be nonexistent. Fortunately, the constitution, by design, limits the powers of people with delusions of grandeur, and specifically of the federal government. And where the law is clear, the people will surely seek to enforce it.
So, why didn’t they follow the path of other entitlement programs? Why didn’t they just raise our taxes, and redistribute the revenue according to their whims, as is their standard operating procedure? It’s not like the government’s passion for IOUs has waned in its progressive aging.
I wonder if this ruling will return some measure of certainty to our lives, and specifically to our economy. It does offer hope for change.
A judge that reads the Constitution, and then rules based on what it says! Refreshing and heroic!
Refreshing and uncommon. Hope is kept alive. We need to win the political battle for the Congress and Presidency. Hope in the courts can lead to disappointment, because judges are immune from the voters. We must fight in the courts, but victory can be certain only in elections. Hope is ok, but “Praise Allah and pass the ammunition,” is a better policy than, “Praise the Courts and place your hope in judges.”
I don’t think that “praise Allah” is better in *any* situation.
I’ll stick with Jesus.
Unfortunately, it’s going to suck being Judge Roger Vinson for the next few months . . . .
I’m not so sure, Bob. He’s certainly made my list of heroes, and I suspect he’ll be on the same list of many on the right. If he gets too much heat from the left (it’s a given he’ll get some), then we need to provide some anti-heat.
I laugh out loud every time I think of Vinson’s well-reasoned, rational, deliberate, Constitution-based decision, and then Pelosi’s idiotic (and irrational) answer to the question put to her about where in the Constitution it says Congress could do what they did in passing it, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Yes, Nancy, we’re serious, and so were the framers.