Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Liability]

you can like it all you want. it's not an accurate statement of law that any responsible jurist would put forth.

Although I think Jilly's conclusion that the Judge is irresponsible is absurd, I must nevertheless agree with her in part.

The absence of a severability clause in an Act does NOT mean that if one part is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, the entire legislation must get tossed. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).

Id.

There, the SCOTUS said (pretty clearly) otherwise. See it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-861P.ZO (Look at p. 28 for the quoted excerpt, above.)

The absence of a severability clause in an Act does NOT mean that if one part is determined to be in violation of the Constitution, the entire legislation must get tossed.

Yes I see that HOWEVER the BILL and its progenitors said many times and openly the mandate is the one imperative in the bill that is a MUST, its a "lynch pin"........see my point?
Its in the amicus brief pdf I posted a few pages back...

Oh, I got ya! Here, let me QUOTE his Honor:

(4) Severability
Having determined that the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, and cannot be saved by application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the next question is whether it is severable from the remainder of the Act. In considering this issue, I note that the defendants have acknowledged
that the individual mandate and the Act’s health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms “cannot be severed from the [individual mandate].” See, e.g., Def. Opp. at 40.

Judge's Opinion, p. 63 of 78 found @ http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/013111healthcareruling.pdf {Note: I added the emphasis.}

The lefties may ***** and moan about it and attempt to smear the Judge, but they themselves SAID that it cannot be severed.

Apparently, then, taking them at their own word is somehow unfair.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Still answering questions with questions, huh?... Insurance also protects you from the other drivers who may not be excellent drivers... But if you don't drive you don't need to purchase car insurance... With 0bamacare, all are being required to carry insurance, which is similar to asking the non-drivers to carry car insurance....

I disagree with your assessment. If a non-driver NEVER drives then why would he need insurance? However, a human being, as some stage in life, will need health care. I have yet to meet a human who has never died.

However I have met a few who have never driven....

I have met people who never go to the doctor, even when they get sick. That is why the ACA carves out an exception for people based on religion. I think that destroys anything you are arguing about how everyone will eventually go to a doctor, because the law itself admits not everyone will.

 

[signelect]

You know I am still learning how to do this posting thing but one thing I am learning is that from the tone the left leaner have never created a job in their lives and probably belong to the SEIU that I read so much about.

 

[Liability]

I really enjoyed this portion (footnote 30) of the Judge's written opinion:

That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.30

* * * *
_______________________________
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:
CNN.com - Transcripts. In fact, he pointed to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts --- which was imposed under the state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have --- and opined that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.
See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10 (quoting Senator Obama as saying: "In some cases, there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can't afford
[health insurance], so now they're worse off than they were . . . They don't have health insurance, and they're paying a fine . . .”).

QUOTING the fork-tongued President is GREAT stuff.

 

[Oddball]

I really like the analogy with the original Boston Tea Party.

 

[Charles_Main]

Same with you buddy. Don't you think that the judge in California, A Bush appointee, ruled gay marriage bans unconstitutional is doing judical activism?

Um not if the ruling fit with the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when you attempt to redefine the meaning of the law with your rulings.

Like the 2 judges who ruled in Obamacares Favor did when they upheld the Bogus ass claim that the Mandate is justified under the commerce clause.

The 2 Judges who ruled against it know the truth, that if the government can justify forcing to you buy health insurance under the commerce clause. They can force you to do or Buy just about anything under the same mantra.

A massive and unacceptable expansion of Federal Power is what that would be.

in other words, if you disagree, it is activism.

Wrong, If the ruling Defies the constitutions intent then it is activism.

of course there is some room for interpretation in all things But usually the intent of the Constitution is pretty clear.

IMO it is very clear that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the Power to force you to buy anything.

Therefore the Mandate is unconstitutional.

If you can explain to me how them being able to force you to buy Insurance based on the Commerce clause will not lead to almost unlimited power on their parts to force you to do or Buy anything then please do.

IMO if they can force us to buy Insurance based on the Commerce clause, where does it stop, whats next. Forcing us to buy certain cars? Or better windows? Ours is a government of limited and defined powers. The Individual mandate in my eyes, opens up massive new Powers with almost no limit.

 

[Ravi]

Ah, well...the Rethuglicans were for mandated insurance before they were against it, as BFGN's post a few pages back shows.

But who is counting?

 

[Ravi]

Um not if the ruling fit with the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when you attempt to redefine the meaning of the law with your rulings.

Like the 2 judges who ruled in Obamacares Favor did when they upheld the Bogus ass claim that the Mandate is justified under the commerce clause.

The 2 Judges who ruled against it know the truth, that if the government can justify forcing to you buy health insurance under the commerce clause. They can force you to do or Buy just about anything under the same mantra.

A massive and unacceptable expansion of Federal Power is what that would be.

in other words, if you disagree, it is activism.

Wrong, If the ruling Defies the constitutions intent then it is activism.

of course there is some room for interpretation in all things But usually the intent of the Constitution is pretty clear.

IMO it is very clear that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the Power to force you to buy anything.

Therefore the Mandate is unconstitutional.

But they do force you to purchase Medicare....

 

[Intense]

in other words, if you disagree, it is activism.

Wrong, If the ruling Defies the constitutions intent then it is activism.

of course there is some room for interpretation in all things But usually the intent of the Constitution is pretty clear.

IMO it is very clear that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the Power to force you to buy anything.

Therefore the Mandate is unconstitutional.

But they do force you to purchase Medicare....

It is a Tax, not a Purchase.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong, If the ruling Defies the constitutions intent then it is activism.

of course there is some room for interpretation in all things But usually the intent of the Constitution is pretty clear.

IMO it is very clear that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the Power to force you to buy anything.

Therefore the Mandate is unconstitutional.

But they do force you to purchase Medicare....

It is a Tax, not a Purchase.

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

 

[DiveCon]

But they do force you to purchase Medicare....

It is a Tax, not a Purchase.

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

you are the delusional one if you think its a purchase

 

[Ravi]

It is a Tax, not a Purchase.

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

you are the delusional one if you think its a purchase

Brilliant comeback, dude. Anyone with half a mind would have described how purchasing Medicare through taxation is not a purchase.

 

[DiveCon]

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

you are the delusional one if you think its a purchase

Brilliant comeback, dude. Anyone with half a mind would have described how purchasing Medicare through taxation is not a purchase.

yes, someone with only half a mind would have
have at it

 

[Ravi]

you are the delusional one if you think its a purchase

Brilliant comeback, dude. Anyone with half a mind would have described how purchasing Medicare through taxation is not a purchase.

Brilliant comeback, dude. Anyone with half a mind would have described how purchasing Medicare through taxation is not a purchase. Edited to show what Dive actually said... PixieStix

Whatever.

 

[Intense]

But they do force you to purchase Medicare....

It is a Tax, not a Purchase.

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

Ravi, who is deluding who? How else does the Government get the Constitutional Authority and the funds to run the Program??? Please explain...

 

[The Infidel]

It is a Tax, not a Purchase.

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

Ravi, who is deluding who? How else does the Government get the Constitutional Authority and the funds to run the Program??? Please explain...

Magic Pixie ferries?

 

[jillian]

It is a Tax, not a Purchase.

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

you are the delusional one if you think its a purchase

it's a purchase because you get something for it.

given that the federal government has the right to tax, i think we can agree that if it's a tax, there's no question it's constitutional.

 

[DiveCon]

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

you are the delusional one if you think its a purchase

it's a purchase because you get something for it.

given that the federal government has the right to tax, i think we can agree that if it's a tax, there's no question it's constitutional.

if it was a purchase, you could choose NOT TO MAKE THE PURCHASE

 

[The Infidel]

Okay, keep deluding yourself.

you are the delusional one if you think its a purchase

it's a purchase because you get something for it.

given that the federal government has the right to tax, i think we can agree that if it's a tax, there's no question it's constitutional.

Well, its not a tax, so enough said!

This thing is unconstitutional plain and simple!

Just like I have been saying from the very beginning.

 

[The Infidel]

if it was a purchase, you could choose NOT TO MAKE THE PURCHASE

Details details....