[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: DOCTORS ORDERS, Judge compares Obamacare to reason for Revolution &pageId'Difficult to imagine' Founders forcing people 'to buy tea' Read more: Judge compares Obamacare to reason for Revolution The federal judge who today ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional said he couldn't imagine that the Founders of America would have rebelled over a tea tax only to set up a government requiring people to buy tea. "If it [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting – as was done in the Act – that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature and substantially affects interstate commerce,' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted," wrote Judge Roger Vinson in his decision declaring the more than 2,000 pages of legislation unconstitutional. Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal "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," he said. A multitude of organizations whose leaders have been fighting the nationalization under Obama of one-sixth of the nation's economy – the health care complex – agreed. "We … feel vindicated by Judge Vinson's ruling that the Obamacare mandate – which forces Americans to buy health insurance – is unconstitutional," said a statement from Concerned Women for America. "We urge Congress to go forward with repealing the law and all its unsavory elements: the unconstitutional mandate, the higher taxes, and the abortion coverage which almost killed the bill in Congress last year." (Story continues below) Vinson concluded that the requirement that all Americans buy the health insurance specified by the government isn't within Congress' power, and since that is instrumental to the rest of the law, the entire package must collapse. His is the fourth district court opinion on the subject. Two found the plan constitutional and now two have declared it unconstitutional. The status ultimately is expected to be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida case, in the U.S. District court in Pensacola, was the most high-profile, however, because it was brought by 26 states and others. "Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. … I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate … Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void," he said. There also are about a dozen states with legislation pending that would outlaw Obamacare within their borders. At the Institute for Policy Innovation, officials said, "state legislators should yell 'Stop,' and set Obamacare implementation efforts aside until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue." Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the ruling backs up the earlier verdict in a Virginia case, and it's important because of the Constitution. "Many of us opposed Obamacare in part because of our oath to the Constitution," he said. "Any member who has reservations should now be empowered to vote with those of us who will cut off all funding to Obamacare starting with the continuing resolution." He said his legislation plan would treat Obamacare "as if such act had not been enacted." Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver, who already is preparing to argue a similar case before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said, "Congress does not have unlimited authority to regulate private actions. If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to act, then Congress cannot act. No one wants the federal government or a pencil-pushing bureaucrat in Washington policing private medical decisions. No one wants IRS agents to become the health insurance police. The threat to liberty posed by the health-care bill goes beyond health care." The American Center for Law and Justice also is arguing cases against Obamacare, and chief counsel Jay Sekulow said the decision is "both sensible and sound." "By declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional, the court rejects the unprecedented power grab by the federal government. But the Florida decision goes further – striking down the entire health care law as unconstitutional," he said. "The fact is that forcing Americans to purchase health care not only undermines individual liberty, but violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and as this court correctly determined, renders the entire law void. We're very encouraged by this ruling and will continue to represent members of Congress in preparing an amicus brief supporting Florida's challenge of Obamacare – at the next level – at the appellate court." If the government appeals, as is expected, it would go to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the decision was what most of the states and a majority of the American people already knew. "The federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don’t," he said. "This health care law remains a major source of uncertainty for small businesses, which is why all parties involved should request that this case be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court for a swift and fair resolution. Of course, the easiest way to protect the American people from this job- destroying health care law is to repeal it so we can start over with common-sense reforms that lower costs and protect jobs without unconstitutional mandates, new taxes, and costly penalties. The House has passed legislation to do just that, and I hope Senate Democratic leaders will bring up the measure for an up-or-down vote," he said. Clint Bolick, the litigation director for the Goldwater Institute, said the result was a "triumph." The judge said the case wasn't about the problems with health care today, but "about our federalist system." The judge said, "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be 'difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power' and we would have a Constitution in name only. "Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended." He concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court has defined the Commerce Clause to require "activity." "I am required to interpret this law as the Supreme Court presently defines it. Only the Supreme Court can redefine it or expand it further – a point implicitly made by one of the defendants' own cited authorities," he said. Obamacare already has been repealed in the U.S. House, where the vote was 245-189, which included three Democrats backing repeal. While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised to prevent the issue from coming up for discussion, Republicans say they will work on getting the Senate, which has a slight Democrat majority, to discuss the issue. In Texas, the state legislation rejecting the takeover plan is being led by Rep. Leo Berman, R- Tyler. The measure would not only nullify the federal requirements but would include penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for anyone guilty of the "felony" of attempting "to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation" of Obamacare. The bill says the federal act: (1) is invalid in this state; (2) is not recognized by this state; (3) is specifically rejected by this state; and (4) is null and void and of no effect in this state. It provides that "a person who is an official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of a corporation providing services to the United States commits an offense if the person enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States in violation of this chapter." Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#1. To: Mad Dog (#0)
Do people really not understand that the "Boston Tea Party" was a protest against a corporate tax cut?
This piece is nuts, the tea party was prompted by taxation without representation in Colonial America. Whoever wrote this piece must of learned American history from the back of their cereal box while eating breakfast in the morning.
LOL! You gibbering faggot idiot, he's listed right there as who wrote it, Bob Unruh. We are not really interested in where YOU learned American history fool. Btw fool, "The federal judge who today ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional said he couldn't imagine that the Founders of America would have rebelled over a tea tax only to set up a government requiring people to buy tea." "If it [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting – as was done in the Act – that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature and substantially affects interstate commerce,' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted," wrote Judge Roger Vinson in his decision declaring the more than 2,000 pages of legislation unconstitutional." "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," he said." I'll take Judge Vinson's knowledge of American History over YOURS any day you gibbering libTURD faggot. Could you maybe try reading the article before making such a fool out of yourself again weasel gurl?
I saw that, and recognize the lead in, catch eye phrase of the piece was a pander to people who don't understand American history well, thus is very fair game for criticism. Very likely those who don't know the Taxation without representation issue will read the piece in a fast read and not see the rest of the piece contradicts the opening statement, and will go on still believing that was the reason for the Boston Tea Party, as the whole focus is to attack the new health care law, not educate them about American history.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
#14. To: Mad Dog (#13)
--
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|