Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

[Little-Acorn]

Federal District Court judge Henry Hudson has ruled that the Federal Govt does not have the authority to force people to sign up for socialized medicine or else pay a fine.

The first ray of sunlight has broken through the clouds of Obamacare.

More and more will soon be seen.

On to the Supreme Court.

-----------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law

by Larry O'Dell
Associated Press – 25 mins ago

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.

[Pagan]

It's nice to see "some" in the Judicial Branch have some resemblance of respect for the rule of law.

[darin]

I heard a hot chick on FoxNews say something like "It's the death of common sense when people think mandating citizens to purchase anything is part of the commerce clause."

[Little-Acorn]

The judge specifically ruled that the mandate - where the law requires people to either buy Obamacare or pay a fine - is unconstitutional. He did not make a rulings on the rest of Obamacare.

But that's fine. The mandate is the only thing that makes it possible for the leftists to impose their socialism on the rest of us. And with the mandate gone, the entire things will collapse like the House of Cards it is.

Very few Americans want to sign up for this monstrosity - only people with chronic conditions etc. In other words, people virtually guaranteed to take more out of the system than they put in. With the mandate gone, those are the only people who will sign up... and it will quickly collapse like a rowboat when a whale jumps into (onto) it.

The socialists will of course appeal the ruling, and go all the way to the Supreme Court. That would happen no matter which way the ruling goes. But now, when the Supremes get it, the question they are required to answer is, "Is there good enough reason to overrule and reverse the District Judge's ruling, or not? Did the District Court err in this ruling, or did they rule according to law and the Constitution?"

The socialists are going to have a tough time trying to persuade Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy that the Constitution says the Fed Govt can force Americans to buy something they don't want.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge (Update2)
By Tom Schoenberg and Margaret Cronin Fisk - Dec 13, 2010 9:39 AM PT Tweet inShare.4More
Business ExchangeBuzz up!DiggPrint Email . U.S. President Barack Obama. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg


Play VideoDec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan. Bloomberg's Megan Hughes talks with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Television's "Surveillance Midday." (Source: Bloomberg)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond, Virginia. Photographer: Jay Paul/Bloomberg
The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, said today that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid that are unrelated to it. He didn’t order the government to stop work on putting the remainder of the law into effect.

Hudson found the minimum essential coverage provision of the act “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.” Hudson was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.

The decision left intact other provisions of the law and only affects the part that requires most U.S. citizens to maintain minimum health coverage beginning in 2014.

[revelarts]

Best News I've heard from the courts in a long time.
I hope this gets momentum.

[Little-Acorn]

The judge who made this ruling, was nominated to the Federal District Court by George W. Bush in Jan. 2002.

GWB's legacy ranking among former U.S. Presidents, just rose several notches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_E._Hudson

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[logroller]

The judge who made this ruling, was nominated to the Federal District Court by George W. Bush in Jan. 2002.

GWB's legacy ranking among former U.S. Presidents, just rose several notches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_E._Hudson

:clap: :clap: :clap:

and Congress approved the appointment, they deserve credit too!

[Palin Rider]

Constitutionality has nothing to do with these antics:


The Richmond case was filed by Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, a Republican, and all but one of the 20 attorneys general and governors who filed a similar case in Pensacola, Fla., are Republicans. ... Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration while Democratic appointees have found for it.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html)

[SassyLady]

Constitutionality has nothing to do with these antics:


Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html)

So, those Dems who ruled for it ..... did they point out how it is constitutional?

[KarlMarx]

Constitutionality has nothing to do with these antics:


Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html)

The ruling cited that the Commerce clause in the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force you to buy health insurance.

If the judge consistently rules against the Obama administration, it's because the Obama administration is consistently going against the intent of the founding fathers not because the judge is a Republican.

Methinks the accusation that the judge is practicing partisan politics from the bench is more a reflection of the accuser rather than the accused.

[fj1200]

Constitutionality has nothing to do with these antics:

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html)

So... you've successfully pointed out the difference between D and R, between loose construction and strict construction, between expansive rulings and limiting rulings, etc.

Wow, good on 'ya.

[Palin Rider]

So... you've successfully pointed out the difference between D and R, between loose construction and strict construction, between expansive rulings and limiting rulings, etc.

Wow, good on 'ya.

The R's are strict constructionists only when it suits their agenda.

[fj1200]

Are they now.

[Little-Acorn]

The R's are strict constructionists only when it suits their agenda.

But conservatives are always strict constructionists, since the Constitution is a fundamentally conservative document. It names the powers it gives to the Fed govt, and states explicitly that those are the ONLY powers the Fed can have.

The basic purpose of the Const, was to keep the Fed govt from coercing or otherwise interfering with people's activities, except when necessary to protect their rights.

Many Republicans (the liberal ones) disagree with that idea, as do most of their ideological brethern in the Democrat, Socialist, and other similar parties. But conservatives agree with it fully, and support it.

[Palin Rider]

But conservatives are always strict constructionists, since the Constitution is a fundamentally conservative document. It names the powers it gives to the Fed govt, and states explicitly that those are the ONLY powers the Fed can have.

The basic purpose of the Const, was to keep the Fed govt from coercing or otherwise interfering with people's activities, except when necessary to protect their rights.

Many Republicans (the liberal ones) disagree with that idea, as do most of their ideological brethern in the Democrat, Socialist, and other similar parties. But conservatives agree with it fully, and support it.

If conservatives were genuine strict constructionists, they would support both abortion rights and gay marriage, for the very reason you just gave.

[Little-Acorn]

If conservatives were genuine strict constructionists, they would support both abortion rights and gay marriage, for the very reason you just gave.

Sure, as soon as you point out where in the Constitution it says we can kill our unborn children and/or make Federal laws on marriage. (yawn)

[Palin Rider]

Sure, as soon as you point out where in the Constitution it says we can kill our unborn children and/or make Federal laws on marriage. (yawn)

There's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about whether we can or can't kill anyone. And there's certainly nothing about marriage.

But it's the conservatives who want to pass such laws. You know all of this as well as I do.