Reply With Quote
Yep, very odd. This is do ent writing 101.
...you don't read them before you pass them.
Mandate Challenge Could Prevail
Apparently, the bill doesn't contain a severability clause, which usually states "notwithstanding any provision of this act being found uncons utional, the rest of the act shall continue to be in force."Florida federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson wrote that the government's claim that the mandate is clearly authorized by existing Supreme Court precedent is "not even a close call." He points out that "[t]he power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," because no previous Supreme Court decision ever authorized Congress to force ordinary citizens to buy products they did not want.
An August ruling in the Virginia case by federal District Judge Henry Hudson reached the same conclusion. As Judge Hudson points out, "[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court" has ever ruled that Congress' powers "include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product."
The federal government claims that Congress has the power to impose the mandate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tax Clause of the Cons ution. On the first two claims, Judge Vinson ruled that Supreme Court precedent doesn't clearly support the government, thereby enabling the plaintiffs' lawsuit to go forward. He outright rejected the government's claim that the mandate is cons utional because it is a "tax." It is instead a financial penalty for refusing to comply with a federal regulation. As Judge Vinson pointed out, congressional leaders consistently emphasized before the law's enactment that it was not a tax.
Therefore, if any part of a law is found to be uncons utional, the entire law is uncons utional.
Of course, this means that if the mandate is found uncons utional, it's not just that provision that is nullified, but all of Obamacare.
Could be slap-to-the-forehead time for Obama. Doh!
We'll see.
Yep, very odd. This is do ent writing 101.
Well, here's to hoping the courts do their job.
I think determining the cons utionality of a Congressional Act is in the job description.
White House Concedes Individual Mandate is Not Severable
In a briefing of White House reporters yesterday, anticipating the forthcoming decision, the White House issued a fact sheet conceding that, should the individual mandate be held uncons utional, the regulations being imposed on insurance companies “would” also fall:
This isn't legislation from the bench. It is the courts protecting the people from tyranny.
No .
4CC, how can you not understand that?
Only if it's in the first 14 Amendments apparently!
As predicted...
Well, we see.
Judge strikes down healthcare reform law
And, this is going to leave a mark...U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson 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 uncons utional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he wrote, "This has been a difficult decision to reach and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."
Judge uses Obama’s words against him
Doh!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.
You're right...thank god they just sat on their hands when the nation was lied to and taken into a make believe war...damn tyrants...trying to give people Health Insurance...those ers...
To what court case are you referring?
That darn Obongo.
Not surprising. The insurance companies that bought and paid for this legislation can't clean up without being able to force the young and healthy into mandatory consumption of health insurance.
Actually it's not even about cleaning up, they won't be able to stay in business without the individual mandate.
It's ok, we'll have universal coverage eventually and everyone will wonder what the the big deal was.
Yoni, could you also post the two federal judge decisions that upheld the law as cons utional? You know, to have a little contrast.
This is headed to the SCOTUS regardless...
This ruling was expected too. There's a reason the lawsuit was filed in Pensacola... that guaranteed a conservative judge to be at hand...
Your opinion doesn't matter. Please, in another thread, tell me why the war was uncons utional, and I'll tell you why you are wrong.
Another thread though. I will disregard more mention of it here.
I would think that leaving out that clause would be by design. If you try to enact all of the rest of the bill without the mandate portion, then the cost to taxpayers would spiral out of control. It is precisely the mandate which brings costs down across the board.
I could care less of the ruling on the madate being uncons utional because that is what judge's are supposed to do. Is any one else worried that we have a judge using a campaign speech against a sitting President as a part of his ruling?
The concept of any judge using any candidate's campaign speeches deciding a case is alarming.
Really? Are judges going to start citing the pre legislative chatter as part of their decisions?As Judge Vinson pointed out, congressional leaders consistently emphasized before the law's enactment that it was not a tax.
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 02-01-2011 at 11:02 AM.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11394374
"This is by any standard is a middle of the road, centrist legislation that builds on our existing system," Mr Altman says. "It must look awfully strange to people in other countries to see it be debated as though it's radical legislation."
Vinson’s opinion:
Severability is a doctrine of judicial restraint, and the Supreme Court has applied and reaffirmed that doctrine just this past year: “‘Generally speaking, when confronting a cons utional flaw in a statute, [courts] try to limit the solution to the problem,’ severing any ‘problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.’” [...]
The question of severability ultimately turns on the nature of the statute at issue. For example, if Congress intended a given statute to be viewed as a bundle of separate legislative enactment or a series of short laws, which for purposes of convenience and efficiency were arranged together in a single legislative scheme, it is presumed that any provision declared uncons utional can be struck and severed without affecting the remainder of the statute. If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully-balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be uncons utional, then severability is not appropriate. As will be seen, the facts of this case lean heavily toward a finding that the Act is properly viewed as the latter, and not the former.
Family Research Council:
Severability is fundamentally a doctrine of judicial restraint. “Generally speaking, when confronting a cons utional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem.” [...]
The question of severability is a judicial inquiry of two alternatives regarding the nature of a statute. One possibility is that Congress intended a given statute as a bundle of separate legislative embodiments, which for the sake of convenience, avoiding redundancy, and contextual application, are bundled together in a single legislative enactment. This makes a statute a series of short laws, every one of which is designed to stand alone, if needs be. The second possibility is that a given statute embodies a carefully-balanced legislative deal, in which Congress weighs competing policy priorities, and through negotiations and deliberation crafts a package codifying this delicate balance. Congress is thus not voting for separate and discrete provisions. Instead, Congress is voting on a package as a whole, any modification of which could result in the bill failing to achieve passage in Congress. As both Plaintiffs‟ briefs and the following argument shows, the Individual Mandate falls within the latter category, not the former.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/
===============
Ruling against severability is overturning stare decisis and "incrementalism". aka, typical radical/extremist right-wing judges saying " the law. I'm a political agent", which is just following the lead of the 5 SCOTUS radical/extremist right-wingers.
You're a dumbass, as usual. Severability must be included within the legislation, it is not explicit. The insurance industry and liberal lawmakers took out the severability clause from earlier versions of the draft law because without the individual mandate, Obamacare doesn't work. They need to spread the costs to the healthy and the young, or the whole thing implodes in a gigantic mountain of debt.
But keep getting butthurt about "radical right-wingers", it's what you do best.
It's a canon of statutory interpretation, i.e., a guideline in how a court reads a statute where congress has not provided any guidence. It doesn't have to be included in the statute - in fact - the whole point of the doctrine is to provide court's with a method of dealing with a statute that doesn't include a severability section.
I'd suggest reading the posted and using your three brain cells to try thinking about this before getting all "butthurt" over being a "radical right-winger," dumbass ....
Except they did not make the cogent cons utional argument as did this judge.
Also, the administration's yammerings notwithstanding, unless the government seeks, and is granted, a stay, the judges order effectively halts all Obamacare implementation. Anyone know if they've done so?
I'm not in the business of proposing, supporting, or forwarding argument with which I disagree. Feel free to talk up the other two judges rulings. I'd be particularly interested in how they square Obamacare's individual mandate with the cons ution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
