Obama Care is VOID says FL Judge!

Just coming across the wires....

www.foxnews.com...

"Florida Judge Rules Individual Mandate in Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional"

Update: Judge says that because individual mandate is unable to be severed from health care law, the entire thing is VOID. Therefore, the ruling is that the Health Care Law itself is unconstitutional.

More details to come, I'm sure...

Let the fun begin!

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Florida has been against this bill from the start. The State Government is looking at legislation to void the whole thing as well. This March's legislative session should have some more interesting developments. Yes, the healthcare bill will not fly in Florida; the only question is which route they will take to void it. This ruling is a great first step!

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne




Been waiting for this news. Of course obama will appeal it up to the Supreme Court, but nevertheless, still a great first step.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


This is why the Repubs were so adamant about getting rid of the public option. With a public option, the government is not mandating patronage of privately owned businesses. With out it, the whole thing falls aparts. Well intentioned Dems somehow failed to grasp this. (Despite my letters explaining it to them).

Serves them right.

This is exactly what I said would happen since the inception of the bill (look at my previous posts regarding the issue.) They knew all along that the mandate provision would be ruled unconstitutional and designed exactly so. Therefor they could claim to have done something for the people while wasting a year of not doing anything for the people.

Not only did I call it, I made an entire thread about it which got ZERO flags.
Health Care Reform was Always a Deception

reply to post by getreadyalready


Absolutely.

When I look at the history of the political parties, this fuzzy area around the Commerce Clause seems to be yet another scheme to blur the law in the favor of big money and the medical establishment. I hope the SCOTUS puts a stake in the heart of the Commerce Clause for good and uses this law as an example. Regulating some of the underhanded tactics in the insurance business, fine. Forcing citizens to do anything that they don't want to, not ok and if they would just remove that from the law, I think I would be fine with the rest of it.

This is just the beginning of the march to the Supreme Court.

~Namaste

This will end up in the Supreme Court as we all knew it would...these individual rulings mean nothing.

There have been other federal judges in other states that have ruled in favor of it...this is no different than the judge in Virginia ruling against it. It is a meaningless ruling.

We will see what the Supreme Court says...they can only rule the mandate unconstitutional...they can't void the entire bill....THAT would be unconstitutional.


And just for the record...I think the Supreme Court will uphold it because they love the Commerce Clause and wouldn't want to weaken it.

No details yet. But Virginia and Michigan judges have made similar rulings IIRC. So maybe we can get rid of this travesty.

Here is a good summary from Forbes:

In a ruling out of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola Justice Roger Vinson has declared that the primary mechanism whereby the health reform achieves universal insurance coverage–the individual mandate–is unconstitutional. “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,” he writes.

With this ruling, and a similar one in December by Judge Henry Hudson in Virgina, it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of whether ObamaCare stands. (Two other lawsuits–one in Michigan and one in Virginia–were thrown out by other federal district judges last year who disagreed with the constitutional challenge.)

Henry Hudson, the Virginia judge who ruled in favor of that state’s legal challenge, focused on whether Congress has the ability, via the Commerce Clause, to force uninsured people to buy insurance. He concluded that it does not. Vinson, on the other hand, signaled in an earlier ruling that he was interested in whether the federal fine for not buying insurance is a tax or a penalty. If it’s a penalty, the legislation relies on a broad Commerce Clause interpretation. If it’s a tax, it’s much more difficult to make a constitutional claim against it.

In today’s ruling he writes: “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.”

You can find the full original ruling also at the source for the above here:

blogs.forbes.com...

~Namaste

Of course it's unconstitutional. The Government has no power to force Americans to buy a product or service. Obama and the democrats know this.

This is why Obama said in a 2001 radio interview that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrains government and doesn't talk about the redistribution of wealth.

The point Obama was making was that in order to put in place an unconstitutional agenda because liberalism is the perfect thing to do, was to bypass the courts because they're restrained by the Constitution and put your agenda in place through Legislation.

reply to post by Angelicdefender2012


that's what i was going to put lol

It's amazing in a country of free men and women we're debating whether or not the Government can force you to buy a product or service.

Obama has really hoodwinked this country. He knows the Progressive/Liberal agenda is unconstitutional. So you try to put it in place through legislation.

It's like saying the Government can force everyone to buy a tube of toothpaste if they deem that the rising cost of Dental care is a threat to the economy.

Can you imagine the lobbyist who will try to lobby crooked Politicians to put mandates in their bills in order to buy their clients goods or services?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Exactly, and very well put.
bravo, bravo for this judge in having a set and deaming this utter nonsense unconstitutional

Originally posted by MindSpinWe will see what the Supreme Court says...they can only rule the mandate unconstitutional...they can't void the entire bill....THAT would be unconstitutional.

Actually this particular piece of legislation did not include a Severance Clause and therefore if any part of it - in the case the individual mandate is found unconstitutional the entire law will be void.

A Severance Clause, also known as a Severability Clause, is a legal provision that may be included in a contract or legislation that states that if part or parts of the contract or legislation is determined to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional that the remainder of the contract or legislation is still valid or in effect. If a contract or legislation does not include Severability Clause and any part of is ruled to be illegal or unenforceable then the entire contract or legislation is voided.

Originally posted by MindSpinAnd just for the record...I think the Supreme Court will uphold it because they love the Commerce Clause and wouldn't want to weaken it.

I for one hope you are incorrect; however, I have little faith in the SCOTUS perhaps less than I do in the POTUS.

If they do rule this constitutional it will open the door to all manner "for your own good" type ideas from mandating you eat less meat or that you eat a minimum of vegetables etc... - you know "for the sake of the children".

It would be a nightmare – it’s almost as bad as using the “provide for the general welfare clause” to steal wealth from one citizen for the purpose of apportioning it to another. Yet, welfare and other social programs exist when the framers never intended charity to be one of the roles of the federal government.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


I don't think there's any real hope of the scotus stopping the abuse of the commerce clause. They are just as much a part of the system that abuses it as the rest of them. We can dream though! I totally agree that something needs to be done in that regard.




Where's the love for predicting this court action eh?
Link to Prediction

reply to post by pirhanna


I hate to say it but I agree with you. By the time this gets to the Supreme Court businesses will be strongly in favor of a mandate and this might be declared Constitutional.

Because of this mandate crooked Politicians will be able to pass bills that force you to buy different products and services.

If they tie it to national security or the economy they can force you to buy goods and services. This is truly a Pandora's box.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by pirhanna

 

I hate to say it but I agree with you. By the time this gets to the Supreme Court businesses will be strongly in favor of a mandate and this might be declared Constitutional.

I also hate that possibility.

But let's talk about how businesses and other organizations could decide they are in favor. The answer is in the waiver process. Already the number of businesses and other organizations such as labor unions that have been granted waivers is over 700, which exempts over 2 million workers.

"Interesting" that many of these organizations getting waivers - such as the unions - were also big contributors to obama's election. So if people can get out of obamacare by making political contributions, why should they be against it?

Yes, corruption is alive and well in the U.S. government - under obama.

I keep seeing these "waivers" being mis-represented.

The "waiver" does not get you out of "Obamacare"...it is a temporary measure on removing the annual cap on insurance policies. The waivers are designed to allow companies that offer limited insurance plans to employees (mostly part time employees) to be able to keep those plans until 2014 when other more affordable options will exist.

If they didn't give out these waivers to employers that offer limited insurance plans, there would be a lot of people that would be dropped from their insurance. Companies do not gain anything from the waivers, if they didn't get the waivers they would actually be saving money by cutting off the limited insurance plans...but instead they are trying to do what is right for their employees and the Obama administration is helping them do that with the waivers.

The waivers are a GOOD thing...stop trying to make them seem like an evil thing.


Here is a good description of what the waivers are intended for:


www.healthcare.gov...

Some employers – particularly those who hire lower wage or part time employees – offer their employees only limited benefit plans, also known as “mini-med” plans, with high deductibles and low annual dollar limits on their benefits.

In 2014, American workers will have access to a choice of affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use annual limits to cap their benefits. Mini-med plans will become a thing of the past. Until then, however, we need to make sure that people can maintain their best available insurance option.

The health law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits. Mini-med plans can’t meet the new limits – starting at $750,000 in 2011 – without dramatically increasing their premiums. The high cost would make coverage unaffordable for many workers and force them to go uninsured.

To allow individuals with mini-med plans to keep their coverage, the law allows plan sponsors (usually employers) to apply for a one-year waiver of the annual limit rule. To receive a waiver, the plan must show that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a significant increase in premiums or decrease in access to coverage.