Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.

Actually, you have it completely backwards. It was the left that pushed the envelope and started unraveling the nation and the Constitution. It is the conservatives and libertarians who are pushing back.

 

[rightwinger]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

Let me guess, you would then have Palin on a white horse ride into the oval office and take command of county?

Plus it's racist not to allow Barry to do whatever he wants.

Typical conservative playing the race card

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

[Liberals have always defended the Constitution, heck they wrote it. Conservatives have always opposed it in principle while holding it up as some sort of holy religious tome.

That statement is patently untrue and does nothing more than reflect your own considerable bias. Both so called liberals and conservatives over the years have bastardized the Constitution to make it mean things that it does not.

Furthermore, while you're correct that liberals wrote the Constitution, those liberals have next to nothing in common with the people who refer to themselves as liberals today.

 

[rightwinger]

More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.

Actually, you have it completely backwards. It was the left that pushed the envelope and started unraveling the nation and the Constitution. It is the conservatives and libertarians who are pushing back.

yea.....except for that torture and denial of human rights stuff, Conservatives have done pretty good.

ummm.....except for those parts of the Constitution they want to repeal

 

[Publius1787]

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.

Should those states also hold themselves in contempt for continuing to voluntarily implement the ACA?

The Businesses and individuals who are taxed and regulated by the federal government cannot determin their own tax rate and avoid federal regulations no matter how much the state tries to block it. Thoes taxes are paid directly to the federal government and are also regulated directly by the federal government.

 

[Publius1787]

More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.

That's a new one coming from the left who doesn't even pretend to be great defenders of the constitution. What part of the constitution are conservatives unraveling?

Liberals have always defended the Constitution, heck they wrote it. Conservatives have always opposed it in principle while holding it up as some sort of holy religious tome. Heck, one Conservative painter has Jesus handing it to the founding fathers.

What are the Conservatives unraveling? The ability of government to collect taxes and support the general welfare. The only thing the right seeks to uphold, is military spending. And even there they screw the pooch. They want a conquering military..not a defensive one.

Here, about 30 seconds in to this video, Milton Freidman distinguishes the difference between classical liberals and modern day liberals. Your claim that "liberals wrote it" is absolutly false in every since of the definition of the true meaning of liberal.

 

[Publius1787]

Fed judges have also given it a pass. So we are in a bit of a catch until the SCOTUS declares one way or another.

It should be put on hold until that time. Obama and the dems know what they are doing is wrong, but are betting that they will get a pass or have it in place by the time the SCOTUS rules.

All they realy have to do is get rid of the unconstitutional parts, and go forward with everything else.

If they didn't put Rangell in the street, obama is untouchable.

There is no severability clause and thus ALL of the bill is unconstitutional. The request for injunctive releif was denied "what you call a pass" because the ruling of unconstitutionality is by default an automatic injunctive releif. Obama must file for a stay from a higher court if he wishes to continue to implement it. However, every day that he implements Obamacare without a stay, no matter what any future court rules, he is in violation of his oath of office! The President has no choice but to obide by the ruling of the judiciary and if he fails to do so he is in contempt which is an impeachable offence.

 

[Publius1787]

More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.

Actually, you have it completely backwards. It was the left that pushed the envelope and started unraveling the nation and the Constitution. It is the conservatives and libertarians who are pushing back.

yea.....except for that torture and denial of human rights stuff, Conservatives have done pretty good.

ummm.....except for those parts of the Constitution they want to repeal

I love it when liberals attempt to correct a wrong with "what they preceive to be" another wrong. They do this in an attempt of moral equivilency to justify their own wrongs and distract from the current wrong being commited. This is absolutly without a doubt what you are trying to do! You cannot justify the wrongs of the left by critisizing the "preceived" wrongs of the right. End of story. Thus your arguement is void and null.

 

[Publius1787]

Why isn't this crap in conspiracy theories? Or at least the Romper Room.

Magic double super secret phantom default injunctions. Where do they come up with this shit?

Because its not a conspiracy theory. If you had read the op I give you the link to the descision and the page to find where the judge considers his ruling of unconstitutionality as a default injunction. Your failure to read it before making your unsourced and unresearched comment shows that no matter what the truth is you will fail to adheir to it so as long as it doesent fit your idealology.

P 75. Vinson opinion (5) InjunctionThe last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is thefederal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of theExecutive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, thedeclaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. onJudiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officersare defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declaredby the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief isnot necessary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.
5. Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence!

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

How did he figure the mandate is unseverable when in the same ruling he ruled in favor of the defendants on the Medicaid changes, why aren't they severable from the mandate?

 

[Publius1787]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.
5. Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence!

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

How did he figure the mandate is unseverable when in the same ruling he ruled in favor of the defendants on the Medicaid changes, why aren't they severable from the mandate?

Because unlike most bills passed by congress this has no severability clause. His ruling on that part has plenty of judicial precedent. Democrats put no serverability clause in it because the law is usless without the individual mandate, an arguement that the defence made before the judge as he nots in the ruling. Thus the entire bill is unconstitutional! Woo Hoo!

 

[rdean]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

Absolutely. The last thing we want is to insure Americans.

The number one cause of bankruptcy are Medical Bills and Republicans will fight to the last man to keep it that way.

 

[Publius1787]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

Absolutely. The last thing we want is to insure Americans.

The number one cause of bankruptcy are Medical Bills and Republicans will fight to the last man to keep it that way.

It has absolutly nothing to do with insuring Americans. It has everything to do with the rights and liberties of all Americans. The federal government has no such power to force people to buy healthcare and for good reason. Your "either or fallacy" is false on its face and misleading.

 

[jillian]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

1. Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

2. The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. P75 Vinson opinion

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
4. No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court.
5. Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence!

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_euLqzDKkY

to hold someone in contempt, they have to have violated a court order.

what court order did the president violate, nutbar?

 

[rdean]

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

Absolutely. The last thing we want is to insure Americans.

The number one cause of bankruptcy are Medical Bills and Republicans will fight to the last man to keep it that way.

It has absolutly nothing to do with insuring Americans. It has everything to do with the rights and liberties of all Americans. The federal government has no such power to force people to buy healthcare and for good reason. Your "either or fallacy" is false on its face and misleading.

Actually, you are wrong. The federal court used the "commerce clause" to overreach and attempt to strike down this insurance plan.

One of the main reasons behind the plan was to reduce costs to American Taxpayers.

Right now, the US spends more than 40 billion a year on emergency room care alone. This cost is paid for by taxpayers and from raising property taxes. This is why some hospitals are going out of business. They can't get local money and that leaves more and more poor without any health care at all. This is a disaster in the making.

But spending that 40 billion plus on goods and services (in this case, medicine and health care), then it becomes commerce. That makes it legal, exactly the same as "taxes".

I don't understand why you right wingers don't like middle America. Aren't you part of middle America? Why vote against your own self interests? I dunno, seems kinda dumb.

 

[Publius1787]

If you want to impeach Obama here is the best slam dunk case for it!
threads merged.
The Obama Administration said that they are going to continue to implement Obamacare despite the Courts ruling. This is in contempt of the recent judgement of unconstitutionality by Judge Vinson. The judge has allready deemed the law unconstitutional and thus there was no need for injunctive releif because the ruling of unconstitutionality is in itself the equivillant of an injunction as he states below. The States that filed this claim should file another claim to hold Obama in contempt and once it has been deemed that he is willfully in contempt of the federal court ruling the Congress should move for impeachment! In fact, no matter what the outcome of any other court descision, and without a stay from a higher court "which he does not have", he is still in willful disobediance of a federal court ruling! Thus he is undoubtably and undesputably in violation of his oath of office! He is willingly and knowingly violating the constitution as determined by the judiciary who has the final word. Obama is implementing a law that currently does not exist!

Here is the portion of the ruling telling us why Obamacare is effectivly KIA despite the denial of injunctive releif. He cannot grant an injunction on a law that the federal government has no right to implement in the first place!

Vinson opinion Page 75.

(5) InjunctionThe last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is thefederal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of theExecutive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, thedeclaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. onJudiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officersare defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declaredby the court&#8221 (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief isnot necessary.

For those of you who dont speak legalese here is the "Great One" who knows that Constitution far better than Obama ever will. Check out this video at 4:15


Mark Levin's reaction to the ruling

 

[Greenbeard]

3. The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.

Should those states also hold themselves in contempt for continuing to voluntarily implement the ACA?

The Businesses and individuals who are taxed and regulated by the federal government cannot determin their own tax rate and avoid federal regulations no matter how much the state tries to block it. Thoes taxes are paid directly to the federal government and are also regulated directly by the federal government.

I'm not sure how you got "businesses and individuals" out of my explicit reference to states. ACA, by and large, is being implemented at the state level by state personnel. More than half of the states taking part in this lawsuit are currently running their own ACA-authorized PCIPs with federal money--will those be shut down by the end of the month? Every one of those states except Alaska has applied for and accepted federal grants to plan the structures of their exchanges; some are currently gearing up to apply for the second round of exchange grants, the establishment grants. Will that money be returned to the federal government and that process halted? These states are revamping their Medicaid eligibility and enrollment in response to the ACA; some are currently in the process of applying for Early Innovator grants to roll out IT innovations to enable that. Will that process be halted in all of these states? Most of these states have been funded to enhance their state premium oversight process. I've seen rumblings that Florida might try and return the rest of its grant for that purpose--will the rest follow suit? Word is that the Community Transformation Grant application process is about to begin--will these states refrain from applying? Will they put a stop to any of the activities the Prevention Fund is currently enabling in their states? And so on.

The states are implementing. It'll be fascinating to see which ones reverse course now. I expect that the ones that choose not to will have your condemnation.

 

[Sallow]

Well I am pretty sure they are going to try and impeach him for something.

It's not like any of them feckless charlatans will be able to beat him in a general election.

 

[Publius1787]

Should those states also hold themselves in contempt for continuing to voluntarily implement the ACA?

The Businesses and individuals who are taxed and regulated by the federal government cannot determin their own tax rate and avoid federal regulations no matter how much the state tries to block it. Thoes taxes are paid directly to the federal government and are also regulated directly by the federal government.

I'm not sure how you got "businesses and individuals" out of my explicit reference to states. ACA, by and large, is being implemented at the state level by state personnel. More than half of the states taking part in this lawsuit are currently running their own ACA-authorized PCIPs with federal money--will those be shut down by the end of the month? Every one of those states except Alaska has applied for and accepted federal grants to plan the structures of their exchanges; some are currently gearing up to apply for the second round of exchange grants, the establishment grants. Will that money be returned to the federal government and that process halted? These states are revamping their Medicaid eligibility and enrollment in response to the ACA; some are currently in the process of applying for Early Innovator grants to roll out IT innovations to enable that. Will that process be halted in all of these states? Most of these states have been funded to enhance their state premium oversight process. I've seen rumblings that Florida might try and return the rest of its grant for that purpose--will the rest follow suit? Word is that the Community Transformation Grant application process is about to begin--will these states refrain from applying? Will they put a stop to any of the activities the Prevention Fund is currently enabling in their states? And so on.

The states are implementing. It'll be fascinating to see which ones reverse course now. I expect that the ones that choose not to will have your condemnation.

Yea I get it. So you say that the federal government has absolutly no means of taxing and regulating the enforcement of this law and that it all done by the States only. FALSE.

 

[gekaap]

What court order? Has an injunction been issued? Because if not, then he's under no court order to do anything.