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70% of the people want it repealed. 90% say they do not like it the way it is written and either want repeal or change.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....newthread&f=60

Today Utah announced that it will ignore the Obamacare law.

[The_War_Wagon]

I plan on dying someday anyways - THAT'LL screw up Obamacare's promises to, 'save us all!'

[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 But District Court rulings are not binding precedent.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?

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

[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.