Barack Obama will ignore the court ruling on Obamacare and will implement the law despite its unconstitutionality
Unless you only get your news from the mainstream media you know that Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional in its entirety by a federal judge in Florida in a case that was brought against the federal government by a majority of the fifty states. While the internet has been abuzz by this ruling the mainstream media has all but ignored the fact that Barack Obama’s signature legislation was ruled unconstitutional.
And speaking of ignoring the Florida court ruling–the media isn’t the only one who has decided to pretend that this ruling doesn’t exist because the federal government still plans on implementing the unconstitutional law.
When Judge Roger Vinson handed down his ruling I was thrilled, yet at the same time I was dismayed by the fact that he did not issue an injunction to stop the Obama regime from implementing the unconstitutional law. But it turned out that Judge Vinson did not feel–rightfully so–that an injunction was necessary because his ruling was an injunction in and of itself:
The ruling said an injunction would be an extraordinary measure. “It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption ‘that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction
And this is where Judge Vinson made a critical mistake because Barack Obama has no intention of “adhering to the law as declared by the court.” Barack Obama feels as if he is above the court system and Robert Gibbs has proclaimed that the law will still be implemented by Barack Obama in spite of the recent Florida court ruling.
His defense of this indefensible position is the fact that while two courts have ruled the law unconstitutional, two courts have ruled in Barack Obama’s favor. In other words, the Obama regime feels as if the score is tied and therefore he is justified in continuing his unconstitutional policy. But what Barack Obama and his ilk conveniently choose to ignore is the fact that the court system is much different from a baseball game or any other sporting event–there is no scoreboard in the court system and he cannot simply state that the score is tied because the only court ruling that matters is the last one. And the last court ruling stated that the entire law is unconstitutional.
This ruling WAS an injunction against the healthcare reform law and yet Barack Obama still pushes forward with the law because he feels as if he is above the law and he can do whatever the hell he wants to. We have seen this before in the Obama regime–this is nothing new–Barack Obama ignored the court ruling which lifted the moratorium on oil drilling and the FCC ignored the court ruling which stated the organization did not have the authority to regulate the internet, so it should come as no surprise that Barack Obama feels as if he can ignore this ruling as well.
We now have a president who is openly defying the law “as declared by the court” on this and at least two other issues; in fact, the Obama regime is already being held in contempt of court for its handling of the oil drilling moratorium for spitting in the face of the court ruling which lifted the ban.
Yet the Obama regime still continues to flaunt the law and nobody seems willing to call him out on it. If Barack Obama is allowed to get away with the flagrant violation of the law there is no telling what other powers he may usurp in the future under the guise of doing what is best for the American people. Healthcare reform may be a good, proper, and necessary goal but that does not mean that Barack Obama can ignore the constitution in order to achieve his goal; he must achieve his goal using constitutional processes and we now now that unless and until the Supreme Court overrules this decision, Obamacare is unconstitutional. As such Barack Obama is compelled to stop the program and yet he remains defiant in the face of this ruling.
Any man who feels that he is above the law is a dangerous man, and when that man is the president of the United States this attitude is magnified tenfold. Barack Obama is consolidating power in the federal government at an unpreceedented level and he must be stopped. The Congress has remained stunningly quiet on this issue as Barack Obama continues to snub his nose at the court system, and the court seems unwilling to step up and order Barack Obama to cease and desist, so one has to wonder what other options the American people have in order to stop Barack Obama from implementing the rest of his radical, unconstitutional agenda.
We are on the cusp of losing our very form of government; we are on the cusp of losing our freedoms, and with the exception of the right wing blogosphere, nobody seems to give a damn. Where are our leaders when we need them?
America's Watchtower 
The amazing part is that he is so worried about Egypt and rights of the dissidents. And the United States? Not so much.
LikeLike
He believes he can grant us our rights, forgetting that the rights come from above.
LikeLike
There’s two types of presidents: Domestic and Foreign
A Domestic screwup can lose a battle, but a Foreign screwup can kill us
LikeLike
The case will go to SCOTUS, which will probably overturn at least the mandate.
Put it this way, which I’m sort of sorry to do – if the Florida judge had upheld the law, you’d be looking to SCOTUS with hardly a mention of Vinson. But because his judgment agrees with yours, you’re taking his as the be-all and end-all of the case. It isn’t, and we all know it.
Healthcare reform is still a work in progress, and as I said before, it’s appropriate for the government to continue its work on implementing it.
Take good care, and may God bless us all.
TGY
LikeLike
If the Florida judge had upheld the law you are 100% right; I would be looking toward the next court case hoping to win that one. But nothing would have changed, the law would be legally implemented and that would be no problem because it was upheld. I wouldn’t like it, but that is the way it goes.
I understand that this will be going to the SC and that this case isn’t the end all be all. But the fact is that for now the law has been ruled unconstitutional as a whole and in his ruling the judge believed that Barack Obama would follow his ruling and stop the implementation of the law until it was heard by the SC. With this ruling Barack Obama should have appealed for a stay–which he probably would be granted–so that he could continue implementing the law while the case makes its way through the courts, but he chose to simply ignore a judge’s order and I am surprised that anyone can defend that even if they argree with the law.
LikeLike
Judge Vinson’s opinion is thorough and logically irrefutable. You seem like a reasonable enough person, Georgia Yank.
If so, then you should be able to see that this is not a “reasonable minds can disagree” sort of situation here.
What will be the legal limits of Congressional power, if they are allowed under the Commerce Clause to mandate we buy insurance?
If this is not the limit, then what is? I’m asking for real. This is not a rhetorical question.
And me, well I would have preferred a little more of this “work in progress” to get hashed out before the bill was passed, you know?
my best, Linda
LikeLike
Thoroughness and logical irrefutability are meaningless when it comes to cases that are bound for SCOTUS. I’m certain you would have agreed that Susette Kelo et al had marvelously thorough and logically irrefutable briefs, but they failed in most lower courts and they failed in the Supreme Court. No matter what, it’s still a crapshoot when it comes to that body, especially now that it’s a conservative court employing judicial activism.
As for Congressional authority to mandate that the people purchase a particular consumer product, I think my party strayed way off the reservation on that one, substituting their judgment of mistaking what’s (maybe) good for the country with the Constitution, which even after 200+ years of interpretation doesn’t (IMO) support such an interpretation. Do you know how Romney got away with it in Massachusetts? At any rate, if they get away with it, I may become a temporary con until things get back in kilter, but it would certainly solve that “buy American” issue, wouldn’t it?
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
I believe that Romney got away with it because it was a state law and not a federal law. When Romney claims that the states have the right to do what he did I tend to agree with him, although I will never vote for him because I disagree with what he did in Massachusetts.
LikeLike
Yep, you’ve got it Steve. Those powers which are not given to the federal gov’t are to be exercised by the states and the people. So a state mandate is a completely different ball of wax.
LikeLike
Yep. And that is one thing that people forget when they use the government-forces-us-to-buy-auto-insurance argument; it is the states that require insurance, not the federal government. Here in New Hampshire you do not need to have auto insurance as long as you are not making payments on the vehicle.
LikeLike
It is not only inappropriate, but unconstitutional for the President to ignore a court order. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of a Free Country and no one, not even the President is above The Law. When something is deemed unconstitutionally, the remedy is not only immediately affective, but retroactive, and unequivocal once upheld by the Supreme Court. The President is “trying” the resolve of the American people to defend their country as a Free and Republic nation. If we don’t stand up for Her, we deserve to become a pure Democracy, which is Socialism, where the popular vote wins and might makes right, and “equal rights” no longer exist.
LikeLike
Subsequent to the ruling of the District Court in Florida, another District Court, this one in Washington, DC, ruled the law constitutional.
As Steve put it, the light was again green.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this issue.
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
PS – When SCOTUS invalidates a law, it isn’t retroactive – remember the Miranda case? If SCOTUS’ action had been retroactive, pretty much every convict in every prison in the US would have had to be re-tried in light of the Miranda ruling.
LikeLike
To answer your question about where are our leaders, well they’re having closed door meetings with Obama and emerging from the meeting claiming the President is a centrist and that we must find bipartisanship with a Marxist (John McCain). This is the place we are at right now Steve. We have a large number RINOs and establishment Republicans that simply don’t have the courage to break away from the D.C. spending and big government mindset. As for Obama not following the judge’s ruling, did you expect anything less from this man. The law is only applicable when the ruling is in his favor. And because of this attitude towards our legal system, he is chipping away at the very fabric of the rule of law. This falls in line with his agenda and creating the illusion that the system is broken and the need for fundamental transformation. This is why I believe he desires this constitutional crisis.
LikeLike
I am beginning to get worried about the Republicans in Washington. We sent them there to stop Obama and I am also getting conserned about the way the media is trying to portray Obama as Reagan. I hope the Republicans don’t fall for this, but I am getting nerveous.
An interesting take on the constitutional crisis; yet another crisis that he wouldn’t let go to waste.
LikeLike
The case almost certainly will go to the SCOTUS, but the administration is acting in defiance of a declaratory judgment which is the functional equivalent of an injunction. Please see http://www.libertymusings.com/blog/?p=586 and https://americaswatchtower.com/2011/02/07/barack-obama-will-ignore-the-court-ruling-on-obamacare-and-will-implement-the-law-despite-its-unconstitutionality/
GRC
LikeLike
Woops! In my earlier comment, I referenced this very article as a “please see”. How embarrassing.
GRC
LikeLike
You are right, the judge didn’t use the word “injunction” but he was clear in his ruling that he expected the ruling itself to be an inunction. This oped defiance by the Obama regime may be unparalleled.
I will be checking out the other link that you provided in your first comment. 🙂
LikeLike
As I understand it, states aren’t ignoring the ruling. Not all are cooperating, and Obama knows he might only have until 2012 to force them to comply, so he won’t let a judge stand in his way. He’ll worry about the Constitution some other time.
LikeLike
I think that the states which were involved in this lawsuit will probably decide not to move forward on Obamacare unless the SC overturns it. That would be good and I hope that other states will follow suit.
LikeLike
John said it best, in my opinion. He needs a constitutional crisis so his government can grab more power.
LikeLike
Hey, you go with the hand you’re dealt. the PATRIOT ACT was President Bush’s contribution to “never let a good crisis go to waste.” I’m sure a jaunt through history would show that every President used a crisis or emergency to promote his own agenda somehow.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
So when do we start the impeachment process?
LikeLike
You need some high crimes and misdemeanors. Continuing to implement legislation that’s been declared unconstitutional in the lower courts, before SCOTUS has slammed the door, probably won’t rise to that level, even in the eyes of the Tea Party/GOP House . . . but then again, they made utter fools of themselves impeaching Clinton, so you never know . . .
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
You don’t think purgery is a serious offense? Ask Scooter Libby.
LikeLike
YESTERDAY!!!!!! How many times must the President violate his oath of office, to defend The Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, before America concludes that he was a liar from the beginning, he is a liar now, and he will always be a liar!!!!!???????
LikeLike
No, auto insurance isn’t an example of states’ rights. If it were the national government responsible for handing out the auto registrations, it would be entirely within its rights to require that those people who registered a car provided proof of financial responsibility. If you don’t register a car, you’re not required to buy any auto insurance at all.
That is, the healthcare reform bill requires residents to have health insurance by virtue of the fact that they’re alive – it’s not a requirement imposed to take advantage of a particular government service, like auto registration or acquiring a passport.
LikeLike
I agree with Georgia Yank on this one–the reason that it’s okay for MA to mandate health ins. but not the fed, is because the Commerce Clause doesn’t apply to the states just the fed. But the same rationale does not necessarily apply to auto ins. Just a slight confusion of arguments is all.
And I see below that your name is Dale. Yay! I like being able to conceptualize the person to whom I’m responding. I’ve not seen your name before. Must confess that since Georgia is a girls name, not just a state, I assumed you were female. Oops.
I’m glad to hear that you disagree with folks that claim the insurance mandate is constitutional, Dale. My impression of your political leanings generally, based on your regular comments here, is center-left. You sound like an intelligent person that thinks things thru on a case by case basis.
Is center-left correct? If it is, I hope you don’t mind another question. Do you ever visit Democrat or other pro-heathcare reform blogs, and debate the mandate or other issues with them?
I ask because I think you would make a considerable impression. You could do a lot of good by reigning in the other side, especially if you consider it your side. Mostly someone like me just gets shut down as stupid, a Koch dupe, racist, etc when visiting the left blogs.
No offense meant by the question. For all I know, the only reason you are a regular commenter here is because you are Steve’s brother-in-law, lol.
cheers! Linda
LikeLike
OhwhatayutzIam! (forgetting my web alter ego of The Georgia Yankee, mild-mannered transplant to Georgia from the NYC metro wilderness).
I get along well here because I think about things, as does Steve and many of the others here. I generally don’t go to the kind of sites you mention because, like advocates for right-wing causes, they’re often too intolerant of any dissent at all – they’re too busy preaching to their choir to hear any other tunes.
And there are absolutes – if you believe the Congress can mandate that all US residents purchase a consumer product, I dare you to point out the essential difference between us and our good friends the former Soviet Union. I don’t believe our Constitution gives the government the tools to create a command economy.
I hope my politics are hard to label. I’m pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and anti-war on drugs (I believe drugs should be decriminalized, regulated and taxed). I’ve voted (rarely) for Republicans, worked half my working life as a union official, and believe in union shops. Years ago I’d have labeled myself a Cold-war Democrat.
And I believe that left unchecked, the healthcare industry will grow to overwhelm the rest of our economy, and we must find a constitutional way to rein it in.
Many apologies to Steve, whose blog this is . . .
And may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Before reading TGY’s response below I would agree with you that he is center-left. He and I disagree on most issues but we do agree on some issues. I find him to be very reasonable and I enjoy his comments because he always provides reasons for his beliefs. He offers an honest debate and I really appreciate that.
Now I will read his comment below and see if I just embarrassed myself. 🙂
Oh yeah, and as far as I know I am not related to Dale.
LikeLike
No apology needed and thank you for the kind words.
LikeLike
My point was that the states can have differing requirements on auto insurance and even the age at which a person can get a license to drive; in New Hampshire a person can start driving at the age of 15 1/2 and there is no requirement for a learner’s permit, yet in Mass. a person must be 16 and have a permit. There are different rules for different states and my comment was meant to show those who would argue that the federal government can require a person to buy health insurance because the government requires a person to buy auto insurance that this is flawed logic because the two have nothing in common.
LikeLike
Yep – the states’ automobile insurance requirements are not analogous to the attempted health insurance mandate.
I liked the idea that the 50 states are like laboratories, where different ideas could be tried out and tinkered with to develop the best approach to this problem or that. Unfortunately, the shrinking world and the digital age are making that less practical – the idea of instituting a state-wide FairTax in one state makes no sense because the taxes built in to most consumer goods will still be there.
Nevertheless, during the last 20 or so years, different states have tried somewhat different approaches, especially with Medicaid.
So how’s the Massachusetts experiment going, any?
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
It’s not going so well in Massachusetts; illegal immigrants are getting care while unemployed Americans who cannot afford healthcare are getting hit with a 2,000 which they also cannot afford. And this is coming soon to a state near you.
LikeLike
President Obama perjured himself? I wasn’t aware. Please explain.
TGY
LikeLike
Sorry for the confusion GY, you mentioned President Clinton’s impeachment and that was I was referring to, not Barack Obama.
LikeLike
President Clinton deserved to be impeached not for the perjury, but for the bonehead move of listening to an advisor who told him to go ahead and sit for a deposition. A deposition is a legal fishing expedition, and if a lawyer who wants to force a witness into perjury can’t do so in a deposition, he should turn in his license.
But let’s be clear – absent the Constitutional term limit on Presidents (a spiteful move by the GOP which backfired when Ronald Reagan was prohibited from running for a 3rd term), if Clinton had run in 2000, he’d have won going away, in an absolute landslide.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
Dale
LikeLike
I also believe that President Clinton would have been re-elected for a third term is he was allowed to run.
LikeLike
Thanks, Georgia Yank, for the additional info. Maybe I’ve been a little hard on you in the past, by the way. I agree about Steve’s site being a good and thoughtful place. You take care, now.
LikeLike
Well, if you were, based on your web alter ego, I didn’t worry too much about it . . .
In my statement of faith, btw, I left out one of the most important things to me – I’m a staunch believer in the FairTax.
Many thanks, though. We live in interesting times, and it’s nice to find people who don’t let their partisanship prevent them from examining the issues thoughtfully.
And may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Thank you for the kind words.
LikeLike
The federal judge should be aware of the fact that the bill contains a number of very good provisions which are already in effect and which are beneficial to ordinary people. Saying that the bill is unconstitutional he has proved that there is a political influence which stretches far behind the political environment.
LikeLike
Julie, a judge cannot rule on whether legislation is good or bad, he’s charged with ruling on whether or not it’s consistent with the Constitution. In Judge Vinson’s opinion, the portion of the healthcare bill that requires Americans to buy health insurance violated the constitution.
He also specifically pointed out that the healthcare bill didn’t have what’s called a severability clause, which appears in most legislation and generally says that if any portion of the bill is overturned, the rest of the bill remains intact.
He claimed that the absence of the severability clause forced him to find the entire bill unconstitutional.
I happen to think we need healthcare reform in this country, but however it’s done has to be consistent with the Constitution. As soon as I heard about the mandate, I knew healthcare reform was in Constitutional trouble.
Those who honestly believe that the Constitution, under the commerce clause, permits the Congress to require the people to purchase health insurance must also believe that the Congress can thus require Americans to purchase anything their dear little minds dream up. Remember the “Buy American” campaigns? How would you have felt if the Congress had passed a law forbidding the purchase of foreign-made automobiles? Or requiring everyone to rush out and buy an American-made car?
Remember, it’s not simply the value of the outcome – legislation must be consistent with the Constitution. And unfortunately, this wasn’t.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Well TGY, I was going to respond to Julie’s comment saying pretty much the same as what you said, but you said it better than I could so I will just second what you wrote.
LikeLike
My oh my. A US District Court Judge today ruled the individual mandate consistent with the commerce clause of the Constitution.
I happen to disagree with her ruling, but the fact is, the most recent Federal court ruling on the law gives it the green light.
This is precisely why those who claim that a US District Court judge in Florida had the last word were so terribly wrong.
The case will go to SCOTUS and those 9 wise persons will have the last word. Until then, the law is properly in the process of implementation.
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
By the way, here’s a link to the article explaining the ruling: http://bit.ly/hjws2S
LikeLike
Yep, the green light is back on. It was good while it lasted. But I never said the Florida judge had the final say because I understand the Supreme Court will, I just thought that until the Florida decision was over-ruled that the Obama regime should not continue implementing it. That has changed now.
LikeLike
Well, the DC judge didn’t overrule the FL judge – they’re both Circuit Court justices, in different circuits. As you know, that’s the bottom of the 3-run federal court ladder – next up are the Courts of Appeals, on top of which sits SCOTUS.
And your take on it was mild compared to the vitriol I saw some other cons spouting. And today, because the President instructed DOJ not to defend suits brought against DOMA, some fools are claiming he overturned the law and usurped SCOTUS’ authority, even though Holder made it clear the administration will still enforce DOMA, just not defend challenges to the law itself. The reasoning is based on precedent.
It was also made clear that if Cpngress wants to defend DOMA in court, it has every right to do so, and the administration won’t interfere.
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
I will probably write something more about it tongiht, but this is an issue that will remain fluid until the SC rules on it. I commented on your comment without having fully read the story so I will have to look into whether or not the Florida judge can still consider his decision an injunction.
As for DOMA, I think that your take on it is mostly right, however I do wonder if the administration is picking and choosing which federal laws to defend. You are right, Obama is still going to enforce the law while it stands and that is the position he has always taken. The critics feel as if Obama waited until this late in the process knowing that he would drop the defense in order to make sure the Congress did not have enough time to properly pick up the ball at this late date.
LikeLike