Reflections From a Murky Pond

Belief is important. It is the foundation of faith and truth. Without it there’s little chance that full faith and trust can be placed in someone or something.

Of course some things totally overwhelm and beggar credulity – either because you, because of who and what you are, could not conceive that people would fail to supports your actions or because your actions seem so atypical for anyone claiming the specific knowledge, training, and loyalties pertaining to the situation. 😉

Tags: America | Cartoons | Constitutional Law | Courts | Federal Courts | Healthcare | Humor | Insurance | Obama | Politics | The Constitution | Vinson

This entry was posted on Monday, May 30th, 2011 at 6:41 am and is filed under Humor, Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

As has become almost commonplace and as was foreshadowed by his stated reasons for his refusal to dismiss all portions of Florida v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Senior United States District Judge, Roger Vinson ruled that the Individual Mandate that ObamaCare is predicated upon to be unconstitutional.

This causes the entire law to be made void since it lacks a severability clause.

Simply put, the Liberals who attempted to rule Congress and our nation did not add a Severability Clause to ObamaCare and, therefor the Individual Mandate cannot legally be stripped from the Act.  An example of such a clause is shown below:

If any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal, unenforceable or in conflict with the law of any jurisdiction, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

During at least some of the many iterations of the Bill there was a severability clause included in it. It did not, however, survive to the final draft which was eventually signed into law. Nor could it or should it have, if basic common sense were to prevail, been included in the law.

The Individual Mandate was first and primary among a plethora of rules and codicils with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 that were inextricably bound to the whole of the Act and absolutely vital to its function and were “novel,” “unprecedented,” and legally and constitutionally questionable. Without it the entire Act will implode upon itself because its entire funding and actuarial model would be gutted.

So ObamaCare is now void where prohibited, which is currently on in Florida. That will change when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case and/or when it goes before the US Supreme Court.

~*~

States represented in Florida v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services lawsuit were:

Additionally, Oklahoma and Virginia have also filed independent lawsuits against Obamacare. That brings the number of states that have brought suit against the Obama Regime over all or parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Tags: America | Commerce Clause | Courts | Crime | Federal Courts | Healthcare | Insurance | Law | Obama | Politics | The Constitution | Vinson

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 at 11:50 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson has struck down a cornerstone of ObamaCare, the Individual Mandate, as unconstitutional! This places the future of most of the provisions of ObamaCare in deservedly dire peril.

This is not an unexpected verdict. Judge Roger Vinson had foreshadowed this ruling in his response to Obama’s legal myrmidons’ earlier attempts at dismissing a similar case.

Additionally the Congressional Budget Office had made similar statements as far back as 1994, so the verdict by U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson can’t be considered a surprise by any rational American.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]

–U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson
Virginia v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services

Hopefully this will, with the Republicans having ousted so many neo-Socialist Democrats from Congress, lead to the swift de-funding and eventual repeal of most, if not all, of the provisions of ObamaCare. With the financial cornerstone of the legislation, the Individual Mandate, being ruled unconstitutional and, therefor, illegal, there is really no other financially viable option.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down. 😉

Tags: America | Federal Courts | Florida | Healthcare | Hudson | Insurance | Law | Obama | Politics | Sebelius | The Constitution | Vinson | Virginia

This entry was posted on Monday, December 13th, 2010 at 4:14 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

The US government is broken down into three separate branches, respectively the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. Each have separate duties and mandates in order to provide for checks and balances to the power of the other branches. By this means it was envisioned by our Founders that America could stay the creep of tyranny and maintain our Constitutional liberties.

Ironically freedom requires restraint.

Nowhere in America’s government are the restraints upon the proper roles and activities by members of that branch of government stricter than within the Judicial branch. Nor is there any other branch where more restraint is needed, for neither of the other two branches of America’s government can do the lasting harm that our Courts and their rulings and opinions can cause.

It is therefor cause for hope and joy when it’s proven that a judge, especially US Federal Judge, understands the Court’s proper role. Judge Roger Vinson, senior federal judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, is one who understands this.

An excerpt from Senior United States District Judge, Roger Vinson ruling on the Obama Regime’s attempt to dismiss Florida v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services:

For purposes of this case, it matters not whether the Act is wise or unwise, or whether it will positively or negatively impact healthcare and the economy. Nor (except to the limited extent noted in Part III.A(7) infra) am I concerned with the manner in which it was passed into law. My review of the statute is not to question or second guess the wisdom, motives, or methods of Congress. I am only charged with deciding if the Act is Constitutional. If it is, the legislation must be upheld — even if it is a bad law. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 79, 56 S. Ct. 312, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936) (“For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government”) (Stone, J., dissenting). Conversely, if it is unconstitutional, the legislation must be struck down — even if it is a good law. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (Child Labor Tax Case), 259 U.S. 20, 37, 42 S. Ct. 449, 66 L. Ed. 817 (1922) (reviewing court must strike down unconstitutional law even though that law is “designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature, because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it, without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant, or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards.”).

— Judge Roger Vinson
Florida v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, pp 2-3

That is a perfect example of a judge constraining himself to only the proper role set forth for his position and limiting himself to exercise only that authority that is rightfully his to exercise. It is not the place of any judge to engage in judicial activism and thereby violate the Separation of Powers. It’s obvious that Judge Vinson knows this.

Tags: America | Courts | Federal Courts | Freedom | Judicial Activism | Law | Politics | Separation of Powers | The Constitution | Tyranny | Vinson

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 24th, 2010 at 11:36 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.