Judge Gives Green Light for Constitutional Challenge of Obamacare
- Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:16pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge says some parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging the Obama administration’s health care overhaul as unconstitutional can go to trial.
District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Thursday in Pensacola, Fla., that some parts of the lawsuit need to be heard. The administration had asked him to dismiss the entire lawsuit, which was spearheaded by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.
The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The states and the administration disagree over whether people should be required to have health insurance, and whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.
A federal judge in Michigan dismissed a similar lawsuit last week.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 700 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 535 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 357 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 360 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 275 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 356 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (109)
MrButcher
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:00pmEXCELLENT!
this law is going to get overturned, folks.
can’t wait.
Report Post »TeaPartyPatriot
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:49pmGreat!
In addition to this effort, several states are taking steps to kill obozocare for their citizens. You should know by now that ARIZONA leads the nation in the best laws, and that’s also true for obozocare. Arizona Proposition 106 will amend the state’s constitution to PROHIBIT hussein and the lunatic-left d-crats from forcing anybody into obozocare to pay or be taxed for it.
Colorado has a similar state constitution measure up for vote, Amendment 63. I hope the voters in Colorado do as the millions of Arizona citizens who will enact Prop 106 to STOP OBOZOCARE.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:18pmThe problem with those cases is that they won’t matter if this case fails. This case is challenging the legitimacy to make obtaining healthcare insurance a federal mandate. As the law currently stands it is a federal mandate which cannot be rejected by individual states. If this case is successful and the Supreme court determines that they don’t have any legitimate grounds on which to federally mandate the purchase of healthcare insurance THEN those cases will become relevant. That will give individual states the right to reject the measure. Until that decision has been made then these state cases are nothing more than posturing.
With other laws states have more discretion. While it’s technically not constitutionally legitimate for a state to refuse to enforce a federal law many states do just that. The federal government has very little recourse in those situations. Case after case where the government attempted to pursue suits against states or state controlled entities were struck down on the basis of sovereign immunity. Essentially due to the way the government is constitutionally constructed regarding federal and state government, states are essentially immune to any legal action by the federal government. But in this case they don’t need a state to volentarily enforce the federal mandate. People don’t need to be arrested and prosecuted for violating this law, they will simply get a bill from the IRS. The enforcement of the law is completely under the control of the federal government in the form of the IRS.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:48pmThis matters very little in the grand scheme of things. The case will ultimately be heard by the Supreme Court. A supreme court that is even more activist and pro government take over than when they ruled in the Kelo eminent domain case.
They will base their decision on “judicial precedent” referencing rulings of other commerce clause and illegal taxation cases that were ruled in favor of the government. Judicial precedent is one of the biggest farces foisted upon our system of government. It is ridiculous on it’s face to claim that because a ruling in one case dictates that all other decisions must adhere to that precedent as if it is law. The judicial branch of government does not make law under our nations constitution they are charged with examing a case in the context of the laws and rendering decisions based upon that examination. That does not preclude a subsequent case from being ruled differently when a court determines that previous rulings were flawed by incorrect distorted interpretations of the applicable laws by those courts.
Until the system of judicial precedent is bucked and courts start ruling cases based on the merits in the context of actual laws and the constitution then the judicial system is nothing more than an extension of the executive branch. This country needs to wake up and stop allowing judges to create law from the bench under the guise of some insanely distorted interpretation of laws in order to serve their personal agendas.
Report Post »Doctor_Harvey
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:07pmVery erudite missive, Mr. ROWGUE!
Report Post »karenm
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:48pmDon’t you people listen to Glenn. This is what Obama wants to happen.
Report Post »Ccbn213
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:43pmIf nothing else…call for nullification. If that fails then defund it! Obama will never repeal it! He’s counting on it to be entrenched in the system before we can stop it. Like Social Security.
Report Post »leftylemn
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:42pmFor anyone who thinks they are going to get all kinds of free healthcare. I have two issues you will need to ponder. 1. Govt. provided healthcare only allows a max of 15 minutes with your doctor. 2. When you call to schedule your appointment is will be weeks if not months when you get said appointment. Good luck stacking those pie in the sky multiple appointments. The structure is not set up in your favor.
Report Post »chevy143
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:40pm“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them”…..Thomas Jefferson
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:37pmPlay ball!
Report Post »AynRandLives
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:36pmLet’s all pray for the safety of our Supreme Court Justices.
Report Post »Jezreel
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:36pmEven though this judge went ahead and did the right thing, there are many judges that are not good and need to be impeached.
Report Post »Zcat
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:36pmDoes anyone have a list of the states that “did not” join in healthcare lawsuit?
Report Post »failureknowsnocolor
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:35pmAnother step in the right direction. Keep the faith !!!!!!
Report Post »megaman
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:34pmI hope and pray that the states win thier lawsuit to protect us
Report Post »justice
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:31pmlets hope “We the People” can finally be heard and have our day in court…
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 2:12pmIt’s unconstitutional to force people to pay for healthcare…God please let the ruling be in the American people’s favor.
Report Post »WTH is up with our government
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:29pmWhooo Hooo!!!!! Keep going guys!!!! Keep praying or hoping or whatever it is you do people, this has got to be stopped.
Report Post »starman70
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:29pmWOW!!!! A judge with some sense! Who could have figured?
Report Post »Anonimouse
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:34pmThat would be Ronaldus Magnus, when he gave him the job.
Report Post »NoName22
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:51pmYou know it that he’s from Florida, best state in the Union!!
Report Post »AngryTexanFromAmarillo
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:26pmSee who says Prayers don’t get answered!
Report Post »Ryan
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:47pmObviously they don’t because Obama is in office.
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:42pmHey angry Texan, you ready to see the O State Cowboys blow out Tech?? Yee HAW!!
Report Post »BocaBaby
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:25pmThank God!!!! May this be the first of many such decisions to follow!
Great also, to know there are still left among us judges that are good, and not corrupted by the left idiots.
Report Post »WVeeeeer
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:24pmEUREKA!!!!!! (I think that’s how you spell it)
Report Post »richierich
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:23pmI believe that the Supreme Court will use this case to finally repair the Commerce Clause.
Report Post »Anonimouse
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:27pmSweet thought.
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:31pmAnd to be honest I think that obamas ignorance of and disdain of the constitution will get a lot of liberal bull out of our life…
He will be responsible for the death of the progressives as a political entity…
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:33pmThat’s an interesting, albeit unrealistically hopeful, thought. If they repair the Commerce Clause…which is to say they spell out in a majority opinion that its only purpose is to compel Federal intervention if one state tries to pass a tariff on another state, they will have effectively invalidated entire volumes of federal laws and programs.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 6:52pmI hope you’re right. But in an age when the Constitution means whatever the Supremes say it means (that B.S. about a “living Constitution”) I wouldn’t hold my breath…..your suit would probably clash with the resulting grayish-blue shading of your skin!
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 8:47am2 words – SOCIAL SECURITY – this lawsuit will go nowhere! http://wp.me/pYLB7-eD
Report Post »neverending
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:22pmThank you GOD. Another prayer answered.
Report Post »dmyze
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:20pmAwesome!
Report Post »Danglinbags
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:20pmI hope this fails. I can‘t wait for all the free health care I’m going to get. I’m going to get more free health checkups than I can handle!
Report Post »Anonimouse
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:25pmSorry to rain on your parade but those of us who will be expected to pay for your “free” healthcare are opting out.
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:25pmWhy? Nothing’s for free, my friend…once it hits your pocket book you’ll come to your senses.
Report Post »timeisnow
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:27pmdingleberry,
you must be one very sick dude! Fist mistake nothing is ever free, you will have to pay something..
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:27pmSister…You are in for a lot of disappointment in the coming year…
Report Post »skenno123
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:28pmNothing is free. You do NOT want to be indebt to the government. Look at your respnce again. FREE FREE FREE We all pay in the end
Report Post »timeisnow
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:30pmWith the Supreme court we now have, this will never pass, because we have never been forced to pay or else we will be punished. As for Social Security, they never gave you and option they just took out the taxes, in this case if you dont purchase health care you will pay a tax as punishment.
Report Post »Republic
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:42pmJudging from your picture, you need health care of some kind, but I don’t believe they will cover elective plastic surgery for you face. Too bad!
Report Post »Ginawilliamson
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:27pmNothing in life is free, except my prayers for your misguided thinking and lack of personal responsibility.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:27pmWho is the bigger moron, the one who trolls, or the one who responds to the troll? Don’t feed the trolls, idiots.
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:40pmStop screwing with people danglin….They think your serious.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 6:48pmThe “free” healthcare system the government wants is styled after the Canadian system that is now falling apart, and cannot provide adequate healthcare to anyone (over and above minor emergency care).
Report Post »Oh, and I do hope that you morons who are calling this “free” medical care will be happy with a federal income tax rate of about 43% (the average rate in Canada) on your formerly middle class income!
And Danglebags, you‘d better hope you don’t contract something nasty. Death rates in Canada are much higher than here in the States…much of it from having to WAIT on your next appointment…you know, that MRI you need for the cancer you’ve been diagnosed with…oh, darn, that appointment is only NINE MONTHS AWAY!!! Hope you have good death benefits!
timej31
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:19pmFirst!
Report Post »Danglinbags
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:24pmLol, FAIL!
Report Post »Mannax
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:26pmFail
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:31pmTIMEJ31, That post was the perfect example of what The Blaze has become in its short existence.
Report Post »Zcat
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:38pmLMAO, Good luck with that “free healthcare”!”
Report Post »2ndornone
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:41pm“First” lol
go back to arfcom general discussion.
Report Post »UPSETVET
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:22pmIt’s a great start for a complete repeal of the Obama health care program that is only raising premiums and giving less coverage than most people already had. It was designed by the socialist who want those who don’t want to pay for health care insurance to have it at the cost of others.
Report Post »Ronko
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:18pmI’m glad the judge ruled the way he did. Congress and the govt have no autority under the constitution to force the people to pay for a service
Report Post »theninthplanet
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:23pmWonder how long it’ll take before the Supreme Court weighs in…
Report Post »timeisnow
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:31pmThe judge in Michigan must have been a Democrat appointee
Report Post »solaveritas
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:34pmA federal judge in Michigan already ruled that, under the Commerce clause, Obamacare was constitutional. Wrong, but it shows how muddled the situation is going to get before the Supreme Court makes the final decision.
However, the Florida decision was just (I think) a denial of a motion to dismiss by Obama. So, the merits of the case still have to be decided on down there.
The fabric of our country is at stake. Keep praying.
Report Post »LadyLiberty
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:38pmProbably not before it takes effect… unless it gets repealed, which I am really hoping for.
Report Post »John 1776
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:42pmTime to amend the Constitution to clarify the commerce clause and bring it back to its original intent: “To ‘make regular’ the trade between states.” It has become the most abused portion of the constitution. Outside of settling trade disputes between states, the fed needs to keep its nose out of state business. Heck, it has been so expanded that the government even assumes they can use it to regulate individual people within a state. (”You can’t grow vegetables and give them away.”)
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:45pmThat little pot bellied pig that runs North Korea mandates that everyone hang his picture in their living room. I’m not sure if the little pig requires them to buy the picture. Requiring people to buy things is something that banana republics might do.
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 3:59pmTwo words apply here and the reason that they will probably win. SOCIAL SECURITY. They have been forcing you to pay for a service all along. Retirement and disability insurance. It’s been ruled legal so I suspect so will the health care law. I don‘t like it at all but I’ll wager that the law is found Constitutional.
Report Post »Ichabod
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:34pmSocial Security went through it’s constitutional battle and made the cut because they classified it as a tax. Money goes straight to the government and right out to other people. I still think the Fed. Gov. shouldn’t do that, but that’s how they defended Soc. Sec. The health care law forces us to pay a private business (I don‘t think they’re as private with this new law, but yeah) instead of directly to the government. So, I do not think the existence of Soc. Sec. will be used to defend the new health care law.
Report Post »nordspan
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:36pmYou’re absolutely correct, but we’ve been COMPELLED to do things in the past by various administrations that we dismissed by courts. Wasn’t it Reagan that forced kids to have vaccines to enroll into the FORCED public education programs, wasn’t that 1979 Carter?
Report Post »snowleopard3200
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 4:50pmI hope the Supreme Court interveins and finds it unconstitutional before Obama gets another radical on the court; or before another extremist activist judge such as in Michigan. In Arizona the legislation of bill 106 seeks to ammend our state constitution in the possibility of the Obamacare actually becoming the law of the land before the courts.
Pray to the Almighty that Obama care will not enslave the land, as they control now almost everything – healthcare, education and student loans, and business regulations. Now with the house mortgage fiasco they will soon control even that.
http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm (mixed art)
Rogue
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 5:46pmI disagree with Freelancer, which I seem to rarely do. Social Security is a Government funded program, and therefore fees paid in by taxpayers are considered a tax. Obamacare would be such a program if it were a single-payer system.
However, because health insurance currently is a service you purchase through independent companies, and is not a government provided service, the government has no constitutional right to tax you for not having the service, or charge you a fee for not purchasing something from a company of your own free choice. This is a fee, not a tax, because there is no government run health insurance program to which these “taxes” would be applied to pay for.
I also believe a public option insurance program would be unconstitutional. The only way the Government could charge people for not having insurance is if it were a single-payer government program, just like social security is.
I guess the closest example I could think of would be having a retirement program. Say the government determines that Social Security is not sustainable ( I know, kinda crazy), and tells its citizens that they need to supplement thier retirement program. They inact a mandate that says you must purchase a 401-k Retirement program from a private company, and if you don’t, then we will charge you a fee for not having that service – it would not be your choice as to whether you wanted a larger retirement program or not, you would have to pay either way. However, it would be consitutional for them to simply up the amount of taxes you paid to support the Social Security program already in place.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 6:39pmSO FAR the Congress has no authority to force us to pay for a service. Currently though they DO have the right to force us to pay into an insolvent retirement scheme that will soon fall apart.
Report Post »The only good news (beside not having the suit thrown out of court by the judge) is that the judge is apparently a Reagan appointee, so there may be hope that the case will get a fair hearing…meaning it will be appealed to the Supremes and possibly ruled as unConstitutional in part at least.
If the Supremes get the case and rule against the president, watch for a temper tantrum the likes of which is seldom seen!
Anarcho Capitalist
Posted on October 14, 2010 at 8:47pmthis is good but it will be a cold day in hell if the court system actually voids health care. Constitution be damned they will not bite the hand that feeds them.
Report Post »oldschool
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 1:49amYep that‘s why Obama wanted another pupet so he nominated what’s her face…..so sad
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 8:47amThe “law” is patently unconstitutional at every level. This is clear. I do not intend on being forced to purchase “insurance” and further, I will not fill out forms declaring my insurance at the command of government, nor will I pay any fines levied. It is time to stop obeying unconstitutional laws. Always do the right and moral thing, but the time for peaceful civl disobedience is upon us. I for one will not bow to tyranny regardless of what any government agency tells me I must do. If the government tells me to hand over fleeing slaves, I would not, and if the government tells me to submit to being a slave I will not. This has got to stop, and doing nothing but praying and hoping the courts agree with you, will get you nowhere once the courts abandon you. Keep praying, but once you’re done, get off your knees and stand up like men and disobey tyranny.
We’ll see how the court case goes of course. Hopefully this will not be necessary.
Report Post »Triscuit
Posted on October 15, 2010 at 10:42amid say they’ll get to it no earlier than 2073 =P
Report Post »