If you’ve been following the news regarding the constitutional challenges to Obamacare, you’ll know that the biggest case of all is Florida v. HHS, in which Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida voided the entirety of the new health law. The White House responded that it would ignore the ruling and continue to implement the law while appealing Judge Vinson’s decision.
That ruling came down on Jan. 31, 2011. More than four weeks later, there has been no appeal.
Advertisement
Instead, the Department of Justice belatedly filed a “motion to clarify” Judge Vinson’s ruling: When he said Obamacare was void, what exactly did he mean? It was a highly irregular approach. Vinson’s ruling was pretty straightforward; usually in a case like this, the losing side moves right away to appeal the decision. Cynical types wondered if the Obama administration was dragging its feet in order to lock in as much of the law’s infrastructure as possible, making it ultimately harder to reverse.
On Thursday, Judge Vinson issued his ruling on the “motion to clarify,” and it’s a doozy. The press is reporting that Judge Vinson stayed his original ruling overturning the law, allowing implementation of Obamacare to continue. That’s true — but it’s only a fraction of the story.
Vinson granted a stay on the condition that the White House file an expedited appeal with either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court by next Thursday, March 10. In other words, Vinson is allowing the administration to continue implementing the law in the near term in exchange for accelerating the final resolution of the case by the appeals court and eventually the Supreme Court.
Vinson’s new ruling can justly be described as a smack-down of the administration. Quoting an appellate ruling, he notes, “A declaratory judgment is a real judgment, not just a bit of friendly advice.” He sardonically recounts the administration’s stalling tactics, and describes their active “misrepresentation” of judicial procedure. Here’s Vinson’s response to the government’s motion (emphases added):
So to “clarify” my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that “essential” provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the “practical” and “functional equivalent of an injunction” with respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the “longstanding presumption” that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a de facto injunction. To the extent that the defendants were unable (or believed that they were unable) to comply, it was expected that they would immediately seek a stay of the ruling, and at that point in time present their arguments for why such a stay is necessary, which is the usual and standard procedure. It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”
The White House lamely tried to cite some case law in order to argue that the government was entitled to ignore Vinson’s ruling until the case had wound its way up the appeals-court ladder. But that’s not how the judicial system works. As Vinson writes, “The defendants’ selective quoting from those cases — to suggest that the federal government may simply ignore a declaratory judgment by a district court until the appeals process has fully run its course — borders on misrepresentation.”
On the other hand, maybe unlimited federal power isn't such a bad idea. How about we mandate perfect SAT scores for all, calorie-free chocolate and world peace? And why bother with healthcare—let's just mandate perfect health. The states will figure out a way to implement it, right?
"""to the extent that one may respond to this hypothetical concern by suggesting that “political accountability” would prevent Congress from ever imposing a “broccoli mandate” (even though it could), the Supreme Court has specifically rejected that as the appropriate test for “the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”"""
It's not only the commerce clause that should be rolled back to before Wickard v. Filburn 1942. In addition, the Incorporation Doctrine transformed the Bill of Rights from a strict limitation on the federal Congress' power over the states, into an unlimited grant of power to the federal courts over the states. Obamacare is simply the latest most egregious example of what is euphemistically called 'federal overreach'. Until the Incorporation Doctrine is expunged and the Commerce Clause is drastically curtailed, the federal government will continue to inflict tyranny on us all.
One thing is for sure ... this economy will soar after this Question-mark of a law is settled. This Judge set the 7 day limit, so that the ball can roll on it. Delay is no friend to this nation... the fact that the White-house IS stalling is more evidence of their intention to HARM rather than HELP the country.
The sheer arrogance of this administration is evidenced in the way they archly refuse to uphold the DOMA law, which has been the law of the land for years now, while thumbing their nose at Judge Vinson for slapping down this unconstitutional monstrosity of a "health" bill.
Judge Vinson mentioned in his recent opinion taking up the motion to clarify that "reasonable minds can disagree" on what our Constitutional restraints are. I realize his honor is being polite and is most likely frustrated with the shiftiness and dishonesty of the defendants, but I am getting very tired of this "reasonable minds can disagree" bull.
Reasonable minds cannot disagree over whether our Constitution allows Congress to do anything pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Our founding documents unambigiously state that it is restricted. How restricted is a matter of "reasonable" debate, but the fact that it IS restricted is not debatable.
Proponents of an unlimited legislature are not "reasonably disagreeing" over what our Constituion SAYS, rather they are disagreeing over what it IS. They may say they are disagreeing over what our Founder said and this and that, but they are actually arguing that the document is not the supreme law of the land that sets forth the contours of power in our system of government, rather that it can (or should) be replaced with centralized government because that is a better system.
We have to stop giving opponents of our intended system so much leeway. It's time to start being more honest with ourselves and our audiences and calling it as it is - they lie, deceive, and cheat to get their way. They are not reasonable, nor do they respect our Constitution. Our Constituion was designed to prevent our government from shifting toward centralized control. There is no "reasonable mind" entering the foray from the left.
Where is "political accountability" when elected representatives feel free to run off to another jurisdiction to protest not being able to get their way?
There have been questions raised about how various state Secreataries of State (I think) decide voting issues. Elections have been stolen before, without computers, and the usage of computers will make it easier. Knowing that, some will assume it has happened whether it has or not. When the government loses that final trust and faith of the people, I think our nation is toast.
Unfortunately. the MSM have yet to fully appreciate the weight of Vinson's ruling or have conveniently overlooked it. It will not go away. March 10th will become the new Independence day.
Congressional overreach? The minute the 16th Amendment was ratified Congressional overreach became just a mere formality for the power Americans gave the Congress.
What do they teach at Harvard Law School? President Obama supposedly is a Constitutional Law Scholar from the above institution. I do not know whether to laugh or cry.
What was supposed a limited Federal government is morphing into a monster through the Commerce Clause, and the power to tax clause. It would seem time to revoke the Constitution (and therefore the Federal government) and start over again. (The Declaration of Independence does suggest that with the following words: " ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The alternative is to redefine the Commerce clause to mean what it meant before FDR, and to limit the reach of the 16the Amendment as well as other of the taxing powers of the US government. Doing that would nullify a lot of the mischief and lawlessness of this Administration.
Note to Investorcs @ 9:19: I think the Incorporation Clause is due to 14th Amendment. You would have to repeal the Amendment to eliminate Incorporation. There are, though, benefits from incorporation (such as the 2nd Amendment), but the question is, do the benefits outweigh the benefits? That is something that can be debated.
Judge Vinson really took the administration to the woodshed here. I have been paying close attention to the briefs and decisions in all the cases (I have a foot high stack of paper to prove it). The arguments of the administration can be characterized as ranging from creative (a "decision" to NOT purchase insurance is "activity" that can be "regulated" under the Commerce Clause---"inactivity" = "activity") to "disingenuous", to outright dishonest (particularly in mischaracterizing the facts and principles of precedents) and intentionally misleading. Although Judge Vinson's order is a scorching "smack down", he charitably downplays the intellectual dishonesty of the administration's arguments in footnote 5, where he merely writes that the administration's selective quoting from cases only "borders on misrepresentation." Twisting facts and torturing the language, logic, and precedents is not a winning formula. But what else can the administration do when it has to defend a huge and unconstitutional overreach?
As laughable as regulating "mental activity" seems, didn't we get there long ago when "hate" crimes first appeared? That is, the making of punishments based upon hate or motives, which are essentially just terms for "mental activity?"
If Congress can mandate that we all buy brocoli, then Congress can mandate that we all buy guns to fulfill our natural rights affirmed by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. How much "unconstitutional" howling would that cause in the media? Maybe we can see first hand how that plays out in 2013 when Republicans control both houses of Congress.
The Constitution exists to RESTRICT government power and MAXIMIZE individual freedom.
That any rational person (much less a constitutional "scholar") can imagine a state of freedom exists when a government can legitimately mandate an activity (such as buying broccoli) is so ludicrous a proposition as to call into question basic mental competency.
The constitution protects INDIVIDUALS. It does not exist to empower limitless government.
Follow
