Federal Judge declares Obamacare unconstitutional and not severable

31Jan/115

Federal Judge declares Obamacare unconstitutional and not severable

Which in plain english means that the entire law is null and void. Some of Judge Vinson's opinion via Dave Weigel at Slate:

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. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

But what is really sweet is this sentance which lends some insight into the Judge's thinking:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Wow...What do you bet, that in the coming interval until SCOTUS takes up the almost certain appeal of this ruling, that Judge Vinson is decried as an obviously partisan filthy teabagger, by the CIVILITY NOW! crowd that Obama counts among his allies on the progressive left? Let's just say if one could bet on that possibility, like one can on sporting events in Vegas, that I would be taking the "over"...

Now I wouldn't be throwing any victory celebrations just yet, as this still has to go through SCOTUS. But it seems as if Judge Vinson has provided a lot of considered thought here in his decision. And, God willing, maybe the Robert's court can use this as a basis to not only declare Obamacare dead, but establish more firm limits on the oft-abused commerce clause of the US constitution.

As an addendum, I'll just present this observation by AllahP:

A fun fact about ObamaCare: Unlike virtually every other federal statute, it contains no “severabililty clause” at the end requesting that if any part of it should be held unconstitutional in court, the rest should be preserved as good law. Vinson actually mentions that fact in the opinion and notes that an earlier draft of the law did contain such a clause, suggesting that it was deliberately dropped because even Congress agrees that you can’t sever any one part from such an elaborate scheme. The truth, however, may be more prosaic: According to a Democratic aide who spoke to the Times back in November, the clause was omitted because of … an “oversight.” Oops!

I guess Madame Pelosi was right after all, stopped clocks being such occasionally; we really did have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.

Thoughts? Opinions? I'd love to hear them.

(H/T JeffG. Pablo in the PW comments, and Drudge)

Rocketman

Tagged as: Obamacare, Unconstitutional Leave a comment

Comments (5) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Danger
February 1st, 2011 - 14:52

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/01/video-guess-who-predicted-the-obamacare-ruling/

“She’s have the government force every individual to buy insurance, and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance. It’s that they can’t afford it …
Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody buy a house, and that, you know, and that would solve, you know, the problem of homelessness”

Bob,

How come Judge Vinson is the only one that was aware of this? I have not seen this quote mentioned in the LSM or better yet anywhere else in the blogosphere (prior to yesterday).

Either Judge Vinson is as awesome as his Aircraft Carrier namesake;) or we need to up our game Rocketman!!!

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Bob Reed
February 1st, 2011 - 16:03

I recall these same comments being cited during the original Obamacare debates, only to fade away amidst all it’s proponents talking-point-recitations and the parlaimentary chicanery that were hallmarks of it being rammed through.

Thank God for Judge Vinson’s well thought out and thoroughly expressed opinion.

Let’s all hope and pray that it leaves no wiggle room for those Judges favorably disposed to statist governance and an all-encompassing interpretation of the commerce clause when it gets to the SCOTUS.

But you’re indeed correct. We all do need to up our game for sure!

Thanks for the comment :)

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Elli Davis
February 3rd, 2011 - 17:47

I don’t say the individual mandate is right but how can they require the repeal of the whole bill? There clearly are very good provisions which should be preserved since they are beneficial to ordinary people.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- enoch_root
  February 3rd, 2011 - 18:11
  
  for instance?
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
- Bob Reed
  February 3rd, 2011 - 22:16
  
  Elli,
  Normally Congressional legislation has language included on severability; that is, a stipulation that if any one piece of it is found to be unconstitutional then only that particular piece is considered invalid.
  
  And the draft of the health-care legislation did contain such language; but it was removed from the final version, which influenced Judge Vinson’s overall opinion. His reasoning went something like this:
  The mandate, which was clearly unconstitutional, was a centerpiece of the bill, a crucial part necessary to make it work. And in view of the lack of severability language, he chose to declare the entire bill invalid rather than presume to rewrite it himself. In essence he was loathe to legislate from the bench, and instead sent the bill back to Congress to be reworked in a way that conformed to the US Constitution.
  
  In my humble opinion his is a refreshing outlook in an era where the courts often abuse their role of interpreting law and resort to making it up as they go. Through his finding Judge Vinson acted in accordance with the principle of the judiciary branch as envisioned by the founders of our country; to interpret law and the Constitution, and provide a check to any over-reach by the legislative or executive branches.
  
  So that’s why the entire act was overturned.
  
  More intersting to me though, and as Enoch asked, which provisions do you find so attractive? So much so that you’d essentially have your grandchildren paying for them in the years to come?
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )