Govt should enforce Obamacare even though it has been ruled unconstitutional

[500grains]

Since when is an order from a federal court optional to comply with?

26 states challenged Obamacare in the FL suit. 2 are challenging it in other suits, for a clear majority of the states.

The House voted to repeal it by a wide margin.

Then Senate voted not to repeal it by a slim margin.

70% of the people want it repealed. 90% say they do not like it the way it is written and either want repeal or change.

Now a federal court has ruled it unconstitutional, but the administration is ignoring the ruling and implementing it anyway. And an anti-democracy Democratic lawmaker says that is how it should be.




Durbin: Obama Administration Should Enforce Obamacare Even Though Judge Ruled It Unconstitutional

By Nicholas Ballasy

Following a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the new health care law, Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told CNSNews.com that the Obama administration should continue enforcing the health care law despite federal judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that it is unconstitutional.

...

https://www.m4carbine.net/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=60



Today Utah announced that it will ignore the Obamacare law.

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/DurbinLaden.gif

[The_War_Wagon]

I plan on dying someday anyways - THAT'LL screw up Obamacare's promises to, 'save us all!' http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/nudgewink.gif

[M4arc]

Our elected leaders aren't going to let something like the Constitution get in there way of controlling every aspect of our lives.

[RyanB]

District court decisions don't really matter anyway.

[kmrtnsn]

District court decisions don't really matter anyway.

Correct. District Court rulings are not binding, Appellate Court rulings are binding within their circuit.

[500grains]

Correct. District Court rulings are not binding, Appellate Court rulings are binding within their circuit.

That is not quite accurate. District Court rulings are binding on the parties to the case. But District Court rulings are not binding precedent. Circuit Court decisions create binding precedent on all District Courts within the Circuit.

But it remains that District Court rulings are binding on the parties to the case, and one of the parties to the Obamacare case (The United States of America) refuses to respect the court's decision.

[skyugo]

unconstitutional?

http://jamiedubs.com/****flickr/data/gimme-pizza-4chan/thedude-that%27s%20just%20your%20opinion%20man.jpg

[Belmont31R]

That district court judge in Riverside CA sure tried to order the military to start accepting gays.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

That district court judge in Riverside CA sure tried to order the military to start accepting gays.

But dude, that was progress.

I do worry that this is a tactical win and a stragetic blunder. If we take out the mandate to buy insurance, it seems that the current system (with the Obama largess of accepting prexisting consitions) will fail faster. The only way that Obamacares promises can be met is if everyone pitches in to pay something into the risk pool. Take that out and it seems the insurers will take in the bottom (line) or taxes will have to go up to cover the gap. The Dems don't have an issue with either outcome.

Now I have heard that Obamacare doesn't have a 'separation clause' that would allow the un-constitutional parts to eb stripped out. It should be an all or nothing thing.

It will go to the Supremes and Obama care will be upheld because Kennedy is not going to let himself go down in history as the guy who took healthcare away from 45 million poor people.

I don't like it, but I can't see it playing out any other way.

[Belmont31R]

Maybe but its not just about ObamaCare because if they extend the commerce clause to being able to force you to participate in commerce just by being a citizen then it opens up a whole new can of worms in government powers.




Im not sure how we go from "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" to mandating commerce by being a citizen even though we don't allow commerce among the states.



It would be a real travesty and show the Supreme Court is not capable of reading the Constitution...but I guess that wouldn't be anything new. We are getting several degrees of separation from the wording to what the government is actually doing.

[500grains]

Unemployment will be solved when Congress passes a law mandating that unemployed people hire themselves.

Homelessness will be solved when Congress passes a law mandating that homeless people buy houses.

And I suppose crime will be solved when Congress passes a law mandating that criminals rehabilitate themselves.

There is no problem that cannot be solved by passing a new law! :mad::p

Wickard v. Filburn, the case during the FDR era where a guy got in trouble for growing wheat in his yard to make his own bread because it "affects interstate commerce" (i.e., he did not buy wheat since he grew it), started this whole mess and should be overturned.

[RogerinTPA]

Hell no! Absolutely nothing should be enforced until the Supreme Court hands down a ruling, which should be expedited ASAP, before the 2012 elections.

[Heartland Hawk]

I agree. Because a respectable percentage of states and populace have successfully argued that this is unconstitutional; it should be frozen in place until all of the cases and judgements run their course.

[GermanSynergy]

Too bad the judge didn't issue an injunction.

[ares armor]

Hell no! Absolutely nothing should be enforced until the Supreme Court hands down a ruling, which should be expedited ASAP, before the 2012 elections.

Problem is that the supreme court has become as party oriented as every other branch of the federal government.

Here's something for thought about our current checks and balance system...

There are three parts to a new mafia. Theres the Don, The "Family Council", and the Family Lawyer's. They have set up a system of checks and balances to prevent them from going to far...

If someone in the new Mafia has a gun to your head do think addressing the Council or their Lawyers is not going to save you.

The Feds checking themselves through ambition only works if they can't align ambitions together to increase power over the people.
If they can have more power for all of the fed and not just one branch 9 times out of 10 they take it.

[Cagemonkey]

The Obama Admin is trying to get the Dept of Justice to prevent the healthcare law before the supreme court. More strong arming to get their way.

[Bolt_Overide]

I wouldnt be surprised if the messiah tried to get it enforced even if SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.

[Cincinnatus]

I wouldnt be surprised if the messiah tried to get it enforced even if SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.

He could always pull an Andy Jackson and say: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

[John_Wayne777]

Problem is that the supreme court has become as party oriented as every other branch of the federal government.


I wouldn't agree with that at all.

The Supreme Court...and the judicial system in general...was hijacked by do-gooder progressives during the New Deal. FDR, the closest thing to an American dictator we've seen since King George, tried a court packing scheme and intimidated the court into suddenly seeing license in the Constitution for jailing somebody for selling wheat at below government mandated prices. Progressive activists began slicing the constitution into shreds to achieve outcomes they considered desirable. Examples would be holding that a restaurant's choice in clientele was subject to government regulation because the restaurant was purchasing products of interstate commerce, or holding that a hotel's choice in clientele was subject to government regulation because forbidding certain people from staying at said hotel could adversely impact interstate commerce.

It wasn't until the Rehnquist court that the Supremes returned to the idea that the Constitution placed meaningful limits on the power of the federal government.

The court isn't really "party oriented" as there are numerous examples of the members of the court skewering schemes of either party.

[dookie1481]

I wouldn't agree with that at all.

The Supreme Court...and the judicial system in general...was hijacked by do-gooder progressives during the New Deal. FDR, the closest thing to an American dictator we've seen since King George, tried a court packing scheme and intimidated the court into suddenly seeing license in the Constitution for jailing somebody for selling wheat at below government mandated prices. Progressive activists began slicing the constitution into shreds to achieve outcomes they considered desirable. Examples would be holding that a restaurant's choice in clientele was subject to government regulation because the restaurant was purchasing products of interstate commerce, or holding that a hotel's choice in clientele was subject to government regulation because forbidding certain people from staying at said hotel could adversely impact interstate commerce.

It wasn't until the Rehnquist court that the Supremes returned to the idea that the Constitution placed meaningful limits on the power of the federal government.

The court isn't really "party oriented" as there are numerous examples of the members of the court skewering schemes of either party.

Amen. It makes me cringe when people put FDR in the "best presidents" list :mad:

[Cincinnatus]

I wouldn't agree with that at all.

The Supreme Court...and the judicial system in general...was hijacked by do-gooder progressives during the New Deal. FDR, the closest thing to an American dictator we've seen since King George, tried a court packing scheme and intimidated the court into suddenly seeing license in the Constitution for jailing somebody for selling wheat at below government mandated prices. Progressive activists began slicing the constitution into shreds to achieve outcomes they considered desirable. Examples would be holding that a restaurant's choice in clientele was subject to government regulation because the restaurant was purchasing products of interstate commerce, or holding that a hotel's choice in clientele was subject to government regulation because forbidding certain people from staying at said hotel could adversely impact interstate commerce.

It wasn't until the Rehnquist court that the Supremes returned to the idea that the Constitution placed meaningful limits on the power of the federal government.

The court isn't really "party oriented" as there are numerous examples of the members of the court skewering schemes of either party.

You are absolutely right about the Progressives; one of the fundamental tenants of Progressives at the turn of the last century was to move beyond the Consititution. One of the high-priests of Progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, wrote an article in the late 19th century in which he stated bluntly that the Constitution should no longer be as binding on government power as it once was.
What made the Progressives of the pre-FDR era different , was that they actually tried to pay lip service to the necessity of passing Constitutional Amendments to get done what they wanted. Today's Progressives, beginning with FDR and continuing with LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama are way past that; the last thing they want is to give any attention to the fact that to change the Constitution, you have to amend it; they just legislate and impose their will regardless of the Constitution--in other words, they are at a point where the checks and balances on government power have waned so thin that, as Fortney Pete Stark said recently, there is nothing that government cannot do. In other words, if government can do it, government should do it, and any pretense of checking the Constitution for authorization of a proposed action is literally laughed at by the likes of Pelosi and Reid.