BREAKING: Federal Judge in Fla declares ObamaCare void and unconstitutional
A federal judge in Florida has struck down parts of the new healthcare bill as unconstitutional. Declares bill void:
The full text of the decision from Federal Judge Roger Vinson is not available yet, but according to reporters who’ve seen the decision, he’s ruled the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. The ruling favors of the 26 state attorney generals challenging the law. The judge ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, “because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”
Text of opinion online here.
UPDATE: Does Vinson’s ruling impede implementation of the act? Competing bloggers at the WaPo see it differently. Ezra Klein (not a lawyer) says it won’t. Jennifer Rubin (a lawyer) had the brains to get a second opinion:
I read the section on “Injunction” and could scarely believe my eyes. Was the judge ordering the government not to enforce ObamaCare in all 26 states. Oh, yes, indeed.
Robert Alt of the Heritage Institute e-mailed me, “The judge noted that declaratory relief is the functional equivalent of an injunction, and applied the long-standing presumption ‘that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.’ So in the case, the judge asserted that the declaratory relief should bind the parties. If the Obama administration wishes to impose the requirements of Obamacare upon the states, it will need to seek a stay of the opinion either from the judge, or from the 11th Circuit.”
“Developing,” as Matt Drudge would say.
Obviously the “mandate” is illegal. Now they’re going to have to raise taxes to pay for this. Let’s see how far they get with that.
Obama’s mob thinks they are imperial so why should their attitude or the loss of personal freedoms contained in Obama care suprise anyone. If you watch this animated political comedy movie you just might understand why the Florida Judge ruled as he did. http://www.marcrubin.com/Hairmerica.ivnu
THe whole thing is a steaming pile of fetid matter. It is coming apart at the seams. How are they going to “fix” the unfixable? How are they doing to fix something that is the end product of insanity? I CANNOT be fixed. It was broken to begin with.
This will get verrrrrrrry interesting.
im stunned…slack jawed…cant believe judge did the right thing…
Yeah a judge upholding the constitution:-) How refreshing. A nice surprise.
The administration is stuck. Unlike the Virginia case where the judge only shot down the individual mandate, this one voids the entire thing preventing the Administration from going forward on any of it.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/florida-judge-rules-against-obamacare.html
If they try to move, he’ll enjoin them.
Once again, Holder has a perfect loss record on every big case DoJ has handled under him.
Heard on the news that Obama plans on going ahead anyway. As the great Mark Levin said, should he take this next step, the court should declare the administration in contempt. The Tea Party should also convene a massive rally bringing signs that demand Obama’s Impeachment for being an OUTLAW. He is a thug, a man whose sensibilities qualify him to be the leader of some banana republic backwater and not the United States. Should he attempt to pull off this coup, he should be removed from office. There is no reason why this country should put up with his thug politics for the next two years.
Entirely predictable (this was a non-progressive judge, i.e., non-communist…now it goes to fed appeals court…then on to the Supremes. Basically, the fate of our quasi-socialist state going full-on socialist rests in the lap of the fence-sitter Kennedy. I place 3:2 odds on repeal.
Now, we need a judge to declare the fraud in the WH himself unconstitutional.
I hope to see the same thing, he has never to my satisfaction proved that he is a citizen…hell why not run Arnold now that he is no longer Governor of California?
Can we find another criticism of the man than the tired he is not a citizen argument? The man’s mother was citizen so it stands to reason, he is too. My sister was born overseas to American parents. For that matter, so was McCain. My sister had duel citizenship until she renounce her non-American rights. No one questioned her citizenship. No one questioned McCain’s citizenship. Keep your gripes to blasting the man for his contrary political position. You will sound more credible.
“Can we find another criticism of the man than the tired he is not a citizen argument? The man’s mother was citizen so it stands to reason, he is too.”
It’s only “tired” to you because you are either ignorant or mendacious.
I will leave to you to claim whichever shame fits you best.
The issue is if Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States…to wit: is he over 35 years of age and was he born in a state or territory of the US?
That is what the Constitution requires of a citizen who would be a candidate for President who was born after the adoption of the Constitution.
You should know this, so either you don’t know what you are griping about, or you do and you’re lying about it.
Which is it?
So how do you interpret the following?
Congress: And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.
My point is still valid. Even if he was born outside US borders, does not his mothers citizenship make him a citizen? Never mind. We could go in circles over this because you and I have different interpretations. If I missed something in the my interpretation, please feel free to set me straight.
It is not as simple as that. Obama’s father was not a US citizen, but rather, Kenyan when it was a protectorate of Britain. His father was effectively British. Kenyan law prevails, if Obama was born in Kenya. His mother was only 18 when he was born. If she had been 19, different rules apply. His father’s citizenship is primary… unless Obama was indeed born in HI. Problem is, there is no actual record of his birth in HI. There is a note in the archives regarding the birth, but no actual vault birth certificate.
Then there is the matter of forswearing his allegiance to another country. His step-father was Indonesian, and it is alleged Obama was adopted. Such would explain how he traveled to Pakistan when it was proscribed for US citizens. He could legally do it by claiming Indonesian citizenship.
Likewise, his school transcripts are sealed. How did he get into college with his miserable C+ GPA? Did he take advantage of foreign student set-asides, claiming to be Indonesian? His college application would show that, but Obama has abused his office to have the records declared Secret by the NSA.
It is easy to dismiss the “Birthers”, but the fact is, they have a pretty good case, which they keep winning in court. The records are kept buried by legal maneuvers.
The point is, you do not know as much as you should about this, so do not just casually brush this off, because it is vital to the country. What if the “Birthers” are right? There is zero proof that they aren’t.
It’s still a long way to the SCOTUS. The game may look a little different by the time all four decisions make it through the respective circuit courts.
In the end, Kennedy will most likely decide this.
As others have already noted the quesiton of the day (well – concerning health care at any rate) is “Whither Kennedy?”
It is clear that the Virginia and Florida cases will eventually be combined and go to the Supreme Court of the United States (I hate the “SCOTUS” acronym) for the final showdown. Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg are going to find for the administration while Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia will support (my view) the U.S. Constitution. That leaves Justice A. Kennedy on the fence and he likes to be a “conciliator.” Look for a remarkably convuluted 5-4 decision with at least five separate opinions.
There is a question as to whether Kagan can participate in this since she helped to craft (write) the law while working for the Obama administration. There is a clear conflict of interest for her to vote as a Judge.
Oh naif in the woods, do you expect a little something like the law to stop Sotomayor, Obama, etc? If the Constitution can’t, nothing can. We all have to keep reminding ourselves that this new group of communist crooks aren’t bound by ANY of the rules that have kept our country peaceful for all these years. I don’t know what’s coming, but I know it will be a stomach-dropping outrage. We already are in a Banana Republic, not just almost in one. This fight is going to get ugly. I hope the right-minded Justices have unbreachable personal security.
Correction: I meant Kagan, not Sotomayor. My disgust and distrust in so many directions is showing. Oops.
#8. snork
With all due respect, this ruling probably ensures that it will indeed have to go to the SCOTUS. The most interesting thing (if true) is that the Obamacare Law didn’t have a severability clause, which tends to indicate that the people who wrote it were total morons. If one little piece of it is unconstitutional, the whole palace of Obamacare will crumble into dust.
But then again, we knew that they were morons already.
But we should not be complacent. The most dangerous animal in a political eco-system is a moron who is convinced he is a genius. We have plenty of them.
At least from a stance of being effective, keeping severability out might have been the whole point. Now, without an insurance-purchase mandate, but with insurance companies still required to cover you, no one has to buy insurance until they’re sick enough to need it. Tying them together is actually a good idea, if that’s what you want.
Though your “moron” explanation is far more likely at this point.
Not quite.
The requirement for insurance companies to cover everyone is just as much a part of ObamaCare as the mandate is. If the mandate goes down, as it did, so does the must-issue requirement, given that the dimwits that wrote it didn’t put a severability clause in.
It all sinks or it all swims together… and right now it’s sinking, even the must-issue parts.
This is sweet news! I skimmed the decision and there is a lot to like in there. This is a victory for the American people! And how funny that a certain “constitutional scholar” did not spot this problem sooner. Perhaps he brought in a guest speaker when he covered the commerce clause.
“Hey look, everybody, America doesn’t DO socialism!” I hope this message gets across because if it doesn’t, we can kiss any claim to exceptionalism goodbye. We demonstrated it by electing an exceptionally incompetent President- but for different reasons: We could. And we’ll be better for it (when he leaves) as the race card has now lost its vigor. (rhyme unintended)
Kudos to Sarah for poking the Death Panel stick into the spokes of this reckless Child’s Construct bound for the Soapbox Derby’s winner’s circle.
Two things:
1. CNN has this headline up or did):
BREAKING: Florida judge strikes down parts of health care reform
http://tinyurl.com/4tr33pd
Parts?
2. Didn’t I read somewhere that Kagan must recuse herself because she was an advocate for the law when she was in the administration? Can anyone confirm this?
“Parts?”
Yeah…parts.
The part after: “In Congress…” and before the signature: “Barack Hussein Obama Jr.”.
THAT part.
This is gonna piss little lenin off.
Doesn’t the judge know who little lenin IS ??
Maybe, as #7 witted, he can also order Barry to produce his bona fides.
You know those nasty CFR government Marxists hate hearing about how the Constitution got in the way again.
Obamacare Unconstitutional! The Gaffe Machine Gets His Comeuppance
Now that Senior Federal Judge Clyde Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida has thrown out as unconstitutional Obama’s historic gaffe, the Patient Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, less than affectionately known as Obamacare, it may be time to review what Michelle Malkin calls “The Gaffe Machine.”
Preliminary reports as of noon EST, January 31, 2011 are that Judge Vinson ”ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, ‘because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void:’ “http://tiny.cc/goo4l
That determination comes as no surprise to many observers, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, who knew from the outset that Obamacare was both an abominable and unconstitutional federal power grab. However, Democrats rushed for passage of the 2309 page bill, were so hell-bent on ramming the monstrosity down the throats of Americans, were so busy that no one bothered even to read it before voting on it. Too bad. The nation and the president might have been spared the debacle that is the PPPACA.
It will be difficult for Obama to sluff off the significance of Vinson’s ruling and impossible for his mainstream media to provide its usual cover with this president’s mistakes and misstatements. All his previous screwups pale by comparison with the monumental gaffe of Obamacare which should be hung around his neck like a dead albatross, the ultimate symbol of a failed presidency.
It’s not so much that President makes mistakes, uses solecisms, and just says stupid things, such as confusing Iraq with Afghanistan the other day. We all make mistakes. It’s that they have either been totally ignored by most of his mainstream media or, if mentioned at all when they somehow become public knowledge, were quickly buried and forgotten as if they never happened or were never spoken.
That same MSM seems to possess a preternatural ability to publicize, retain, and enshrine in its archives to be dredged up on command any slip by Republicans such as George W. Bush or, more lately, by Sarah Palin, but they have done Barack Hussein Obama a major disservice: They made him think and believe his pre-and post-election press, that he was flawless, that he was a modern messiah, that he could virtually walk on water, was real and true.
Had the MSM humanized him, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3530)
I wouldn’t break out the champagne just yet. Give the way the FCC, EPA, and DOJ have simply done whatever they want to do, Constitution notwithstanding, HHS still has a lot of power to impose its will. The FCC did exactly that recently, in the face of a court ruling to the contrary.
It’s fine for the 26 states named in the suit, but I live in Massachusetts. Don’t I get relief, too?
Gotta love it… Judge Vinson uses Obama’s own words against him!
Marvelous. Hoist by his own rhetoric.
What about the FBI? Is that constitutional? The constitution mentions a “militia”. I’m not sure the FBI is a militia. It seems to me that the US is founded on traditions more than a constitution. The constitution is on off on off like flickering lights.
UR absolutely right; it’s “tradition” not “constitution” that America is founded on; so that, from now on, we can have for instance an American Natural Born Citizen to serve as President, then a Kenyan citizen, then an Indonesian citizen and so forth as BHO has set that “precedent.”
BTW, from which part of the World are you sending this original thoughtful piece?
This is worth kicking up your heels and celebrating. While Obama-care was a monster whale that needed to be beached, the argument for appeal is ‘the commerce clause.’ Now the Supremes not only get to settle the Obama-care, they also get to determine the limits of federal intrusion on state’s rights. The 10th Admendment is revived. Meanwhile 9 state continue to try to pass ‘nullification’ rules.
Yes–you are correct. In a very real sense we do have Obama the Great and all his Progressive minions to thank. In the past the Progressives were content to slowly ratchet up the welfare state. Don’t let the victims get too annoyed too fast or the game is up, or they might start swatting every parasite sucking on them.
But when they elected the Light Worker they thought they could put through their agenda at any speed they desired and that no one could stop them. But this in turn revealed to all what they really were.
The masks are now being ripped away, and beneath those Mother Terissa masks people are beginning to see the face of the political tapeworms, and they are not liking what they see or what the tapeworms do.
Are you serious?
ROFLMAO
In spite of the impending ice storm [thanks to global warming] this has made my day.
Prior to his election, Obama is on tape numerous times making the argument that using reconciliation/the nuclear option for “massive social legislation” like healthcare was wrong.
Apparently, Obama is also on record (footnote in Judge Vinson’s ruling) opposing anything like a “mandate” to purchase health insurance being built into healthcare legislation.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Judge uses Obama’s words against him
(in a transparent attempt to turn tables, the Left is calling Judge Vinson’s ruling “judicial activism”)
#19 Jed: “this is worth kicking up your heels and celebrating….” Not so fast. So what if one judge declares the healthcare law unconstitutional and another judge says it’s partially unconstitutional? Two other district court judges have upheld it.
And, we’ve yet to see a replacement bill or program from the Tea Partiers in the House of Representatives. Among some good things, the existing Obamacare law gives more authority to Medicare to go after fraudsters.
The whole thing will end up in the Supreme Court. And how it turns out is anyone’s guess. There does seem to be an obscure 1942 S.C. decision; Wickard v. Filburn; that may play a significant role in how the Supreme Court might rule.
#7 comment and reply: “I hope to see the same thing, he has never proved to my satisfaction that he (Obama) is a citizen.” That’s real old news. On his Fox News show during November, 2009, Bill O’Reilly conclusively proved that Obama is a citizen.
Except that, recently, it has been discovered that, while there is a notation in the archives about Barry’s birth, there actually is NO vault Birth Certificate. Do try to keep up, Steve.
I am keeping up Marc. I saw a color copy of Obama’s birth certificate just in the last couple weeks on another thread or site. Bottom line is simple: the continuing focus on Obama’s citizenship distracts from real issues like jobs and the economy. Same problem in the House of Reps. where the Tea Partiers are trying to redefine rape instead of working on jobs like they promised to do.
Since his mother was an American citizen it is fairly clear that he was indeed a citizen of the United States when he was born.
I think this is a decoy. The real issues concern his academic records. Did he, for example, get an American scholarship based upon his claims that he was a citizen of Indonesia? If so, does this mean legally that he had given up his American citizenship, or does it just mean that he was a fraud?
The real key to the deception will be found there, not in the birth certificate.
Not so fast; his mother being an American doesn’t confer citizenship automatically (age and length of residency requirements apply in combination with place of birth).
As to the main issue, there’s a huge difference between being a “citizen” and being a “natural born citizen” (NBC) according to the Constitutional requirement to be eligible for the Office of the President. It is being argued that NBC requires to be born in the US to TWO citizen parents.
It is advisable to study the issue carefully, before issuing pronouncements. Bill O’Baxter is a baffoon.
“Did he, for example, get an American scholarship based upon his claims that he was a citizen of Indonesia? If so, does this mean legally that he had given up his American citizenship, or does it just mean that he was a fraud?”
Now why isn’t this question brought up more often?
This is no surprise, really.
WANNTED:
5 food tasters for certain members of the SCOTUS.
As to “Injunction” and….. ["If the Obama administration wishes to impose the requirements of Obamacare upon the states, it will need to seek a stay of the opinion either from the judge, or from the 11th Circuit.”]. That is the correct “legal” answer and enough historic case law citations in support, to sink an aircraft carrier. However, over the past 60 years, a new juris prudence “system” has systematically evolved. Today, a courts ruling “can” seemingly take on an adversarial position of subjectivity, boundless and and non binding pending a higher court..or highest court adjudication. I’m afraid this is one of those times the adversaries will selectively employ this strategy…..forcing every step into the courts hoping for a favorable activist ruling.
Historically and typically, such a framed ruling as today, would automatically infer at a minimum, a “Stay” on behalf of the petitioners unless specified otherwise in the courts ruling. In this case, the court went the extra mile and ruled the entire legislative act to be unconstitutional since the original severability clause was removed by congress. The historical and correct action on behalf of a respondent, would be to seek from the court, relief through a “temporary stay” until, adjudicated by a higher court or constitutionally amended by a legislative body of jurisdiction.
The Obama administration and New Age lawyers will most likely ignore the ruling and when need be, by their actions, force each, back into the courts each step of the way…buying time for implementation and more favorable opinions of the Act by the general public.
This is no surprise, really. Who did not know that this is how it would turn out? Likewise, who does not know that this will end up before the Supreme Court, even though the ruling is so clear, that they should not take it up at all? Who does not know that the liberals on the court will ignore the Constitution as it is written and the Bill of Rights?
What is sad is that the final SC decision is actually in doubt. We are this close to losing all our freedoms. If the SC rules in favor of ObamaCare, it opens the door to governmental reach into every aspect of our lives.
I am not celebrating at all. Sorry to rain on everyone’s parade, but we have gone from the frying pan into the fire. It is truly dangerous territory we now enter, and it all hangs on Kennedy’s decision. The future of this country rests all on one man’s decision. Will he uphold the Constitution, or will he scrap it? This is the decision point. We roll back government’s intrusion, establishing a stop line, or we go forward into darkness. this is it. Win or lose. This is for all the marbles.
I don’t think Roberts is a sure vote, and Kennedy is a hopeless case, unfortunately. We really only have three solid votes.
Now, if a million people show up in DC, then the equation changes.
“If the SC rules in favor of ObamaCare, it opens the door to governmental reach into every aspect of our lives.”
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson
People in this nation are beginning to fear the government.
Perhaps there is another factor that is not being discussed that may enter the argument before the court, public opposition. The SC is likely to be caught between an obamma and a hard place. There is so much discontent against this law, and more importantly against the implications of this law, that the SC may think twice. Does it really want the States to define – redefine the meaning of Commerce? Does it really want the States themselves to rise up and put limits on the power of the court? This is not as far fetched as it may seem at first glance. Imagine the States forcing a Constitutional amendment that allows the States to more easily over-ride a decision of the Court. Imagine the States forcing an amendment redefining commerce, redefining it back to what the Founding Fathers intended. This could happen.
If the SC rules in favor of Obamma Care, then all limits to Federal power are removed. The States may revolt against this, if for no other reason than the Federal Government is draining the bank accounts of the states. I submit that the members of SCOTUS are all to well aware of just exactly these factors, and they may have those factors in the back of their minds when they decide. This case is not just about Obamma Care, it is about the limits of the power of our government, and Americans (mostly) are sick and tired of being ruled in our daily lives by our government.
So let is not put the decision entirely on the back of one member of the SC. Let us put the results, both intended and unintended, on the back of each and every menber.
To quote our addlepated VP: THIS IS A BIG F—ING DEAL!!!! Sho’ is Joe.
IF the President were an honest person/leader, with only the best interest of the country at heart over ideology, he’d direct his Attorney and Solicitor Generals to stipulate to any Rule 11 petition filed and move the case directly to the Supreme Court.
As to Justice Kagan. She personally argued only six cases on behalf of the government as SG. None of them involved the PPACA, though her office did argue a San Francisco case in which the SG cited the pending PPACA, during the month in which she departed. It would appear as though she will be sitting on the bench for the PPACA case when it arrives at the Supreme Court. She essentially has ZERO professional positions that have been spoken or published during her career… that is void of any judgeship. Other than obvious socialist progressive leanings we have NO idea(s) what her position may be on the Constitutions Commerce Clause. I personally suspect, her constitutional opinion of the commerce clause, will be most liberal and favorable to this administration as applied to the PPACA.
As to the Constitutions Commerce Clause. In the case at hand, it is a very, very simple and elementary question. Does the intent of the commerce clause grant to the government the right to legislate that ALL citizens be mandated to participate involuntarily in a specified mechanism of private sector commerce? I submit that even by the wildest stretch of imagination the constitution does not provide for that premise of intent.
On the other hand! Had public health care been legislated, then the constitutions congressional authority to “assess and levy tax” would have supported such legislation on ALL citizens [meeting the requirement] to taxed. Even in this case, you will notice that not ALL citizens would be qualified to be taxed, as you simply cannot impose any tax on those who do not have the means of income to be taxed.
So again, based purely upon the constitution and not some ideology, the question is simple and the answer equally simple. You cannot “force” all citizens to involuntarily participate in a specified sector of the private sector commerce. The constitution ONLY allows the government to assess and collect from citizens….TAXES. The PPACA does NOT legislate any assessment of taxation….like social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, workers compensation, etc.
Regardless, law is no longer exclusively about the constitution but rather, political and social ideology…so it will be interesting to see the outcome from the SC.
You said:
“IF the President were an honest person/leader, with only the best interest of the country at heart over ideology,… ”
That is a big IF, and of course he doesn’t. Or at least not my America, maybe his “America” and the two ain’t the same.
Obamacare was never about health care, it was about political control and a direct affront and challenge to Constitutional authority. The passing of obamacare legislation, however pathetic/corrupt it was, gave the left the impression that now, at last, they have gotten rid of the “Constitution.” That’s why the Florida Judge framed his ruling the way he did.
I find it deliciously ironic that, with all the nasty little nuggets buried within the 2,000 plus pages of this monstrosity of a bill, the few little words that WEREN’T in it are what is bringing it down: “non-severability.” What a hoot! Hey San Fran Nan, when you asininely advised us “we’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it,” you were so right! Guess you should have told your fellow DimWits in Congress, “we’ll have to read it to see what’s NOT in it.” Savoring the moment.
Cup of tea anyone? Unrelatedly, I was at a long-planned Houston Tea Party/True the Vote meeting a few hours after this decision came down. Texas Republican Representative Ted Poe was speaking. When the subject of this decision came up, there was Partying in the Streets.
Ironically, I was seated next to the most vociferous attendee, who is a Kenyan-born woman with nothing but contempt for a man whom she believes was indeed born in the same hospital she was. She took a shine to me, and we talked a while after the meeting. I liked her a lot and found myself thinking, “Here’s the proof of the non-racism and lack of prejudice of the Tea Party. Where’s the media?” It wasn’t there of course.
There was an apparent plant who raised a question to Rep. Poe in a jolting, accusatory voice; he slammed Republican Reps many times in his long-winded forum of a question. The ugliest-speaking person in a crowd of polite, intelligent, focused-on-the issues true Americans. After his little deragatory speech, the slimey-appearing weasel continued to scan the crowd furtively to see his effect. He was politely ignored.
The Dumbocrats now find themselves caught in their own trap: their infamous rush to please Little Lenin and cram down an unpopular bill reulted in one that they never read and consequently never proofread. For once, Repubs get to see the shocked surprise dawn on the Dims’ faces as the results of their own underhanded behind-the-scenes tricks come to the light of day. As someone above well-phrased it, gotta love it.
As Tom Clancy once said in Executive Orders, “You never were a very good lawyer.”
Ah heck, we tried using Congress’ taxing authority under Article I. That went down in flames, particularly since we ourselves argued prior to this bill’s so called passage that the purchase mandate wasn’t a tax.
So then we tried to apply the commerce clause, Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce.
(Currently, we’re reduced to standing on our heads to classify not purchasing a product (health insurance) as “commerce”.)
Well, hell, says Barry, Eric and his minions, then just grab at the Constitution’s “necessary & proper clause” or the “general welfare” clause to justify our egregious grasp for all-encompassing regulation of the citizen’s life. (How very painful, we’re still forced to try to justify ourselves on the basis of that tired, irrelevant old document…that brief collection of human thought “over 100 years old that nobody understands” (Eric Klein))
It’s not for nothing that Judge Vinson cited Madison #51 at the outset of his ruling, reminding this crowd of yahoos in DC that the entire structure of this federal government is based on the notion of…
Limited and enumerated powers
Looks like this might be the way the FCC gets around being unable to reimpose the “Fairness Doctrine”
FCC Orders NBC Newsrooms To Partner With Soros-Funded Non-Profits
hvac software