Unconstitutional

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)