Another brick in the wall!
Judge rules against health law, cites Obama’s words
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“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,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.
Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.
The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.
Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.
During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.
Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.
Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.
Thanks, Erinyes!
Michelle Malkin has links, including the ruling and the administration’s “odd” response.
:woot: :nana: :may: :nana: :woot:
I confess to not knowing what it has to do with obama; he had little to do with the bill other than signing the thing… but I’ll take it and be glad!
:nana: :may: :yay: :woot: :nana: :clap: :thumbs:
Because in 2008, Obama opposed forcing people to buy insurance because he said that if that were a reasonable option, then we could end homelessness by forcing people to buy houses. The judge cited Obama’s own words in his opinion.
I know… but what did obama have to do with the health care bill? Pelosi and Reid, et al, drafted the thing while he partied and bowed to dictators…
The Obama thing is not the law he based his decision on – just something he threw in for some reason. Poetic license? Literary flare? Whatever – he made the right call based on Constitutional law and that is what truly matters. Now we’ll see where it goes from here.
Right… this particular article just emphasized the obama thing. :thumbs:
The interesting thing is that the Obama (In)Justice Department did not include severability (sp?) into their defense of the suit. If they had, the rest of the law could be going into effect. As it is, the whole thing is dead unless a higher court overrules this Judge. And as well reasoned, with as much constitutional history included in this ruling, I do not believe any higher court can lightly over rule him.
Remember how they all told us that the smart people were running things now that Bush was gone? These folks ain’t near as smart as they think they are. The whole crowd went to lefty schools where they were all told how special they are. The rest of us went to jobs where we had to do something. The Obama Administration. The Special Class at work.
The Puppyblender has it right when he sarcastically says “the country is in the very best of hands. Bunch of effing morons.
I heard someone mention sever-ability… or whatever it is… but don’t know what that means. I’m guessing parts of the whole could have been lopped off if they’d included it?
I hope this ruling stands!
yeah, sever-ability is a clause that states should any one part be found unconstitutional it can be “severed” from the rest of the law thereby keeping as much as possible. they couldn’t put that clause in because they knew which part was probably the part that would be found constitutional but without the income generated by forcing everyone to buy-in or pay fines they couldn’t make the bill fit into the financial rules (non-deficit causing). of course even that part was smoke and mirrors.
Thanks for the explanation! :thumbs: