Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

Rate this post

“Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.” -J.R.R. Tolkien

Two days ago, Federal Judge Roger Vinson did just that when he ruled that Obamacare’s requirement that every American must purchase medical insurance violates the Constitution. Already, Judge Vinson’s ruling is having an impact as news comes today that Wisconsin’s attorney general, J. B. Van Hollen, has declared his state to be free of any obligations imposed by Obamacare.

Vinson, a lover and grower of the camellia flower, was an aviator in the U.S. Navy. Here is Judge Vinson’s legal reasoning, which is lodged firmly in the U.S. Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. It’s well worth your read!
Read the full text of Vinson’s ruling HERE.
H/t beloved fellows Tina & May.


The Constitutional Moment

U.S. Federal Judge Roger Vinson

Judge Vinson introduces ObamaCare to Madison and Marshall.
Wall St. Journal – Feb 1, 2011
‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Federal Judge Roger Vinson opens his decision declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional with that citation from Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788. His exhaustive and erudite opinion is an important moment for American liberty, and yesterday may well stand as the moment the political branches were obliged to return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned.
As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all, or the wisdom—we would argue the destructiveness—of the newest entitlement. Rather, the Florida case goes to the core of the architecture of the American system, and whether there are any remaining limits on federal control. Judge Vinson’s 78-page ruling in favor of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others, is by far the best legal vindication to date of Constitutional principles that form the outer boundaries of federal power.
At the heart of the states’ lawsuit is the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase health insurance or be penalized for not doing so. “Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States,” Judge Vinson writes.
Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration justified this coercion under the Commerce Clause, so it is fitting that Judge Vinson conducts a deep investigation into its history and intent, including Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention and the jurisprudence of the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall. The original purpose of the Commerce Clause was to eliminate the interstate trade barriers that prevailed under the Articles of Confederation—among the major national problems that gave rise to the Constitution.
The courts affirmed this limited and narrow understanding until the New Deal, when Congress began to regulate harum-scarum and the Supreme Court inflated the clause into a general license for anything a majority happened to favor.
In a major 1942 case, Wickard v. Filburn, the Court held that even growing wheat for personal use was an activity with a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, thus justifying federal restrictions on the use of agricultural land meant to prop up commodity prices. It wasn’t until the William Rehnquist Court, a half-century later, that the Justices began to recover some of the original limits, notably in the Lopez (1995) and Morrison (2000) cases.
Yet even in its most elastic interpretations, the Commerce Clause applied only to “clear and inarguable activity,” Judge Vinson writes, the emphasis his. It never applied to inactivity like not buying health insurance, which has “no impact whatsoever” on interstate commerce. He argues that breaching this frontier converts the clause into a general police power of the kind that the Constitution reserves to the states. As the High Court put it in Lopez, obliterating this distinction would “create a completely centralized government.”

The Administration contends that not purchasing insurance—inactivity—is really activity, because everyone will eventually need medical care and their costs will be transferred to the insured. But Judge Vinson dissects that as a “radical departure” from the Constitution and U.S. case law. It is “not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” he writes. “Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.”
He notes that no one can opt out of eating any more than they can from the medical system, so return to the Wickard example of wheat: “Congress could more directly raise too-low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market.”

Unlike Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, who also found ObamaCare to be unconstitutional, Judge Vinson addresses the Administration’s fallback argument that the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause justifies the law even if the Commerce Clause doesn’t. He writes that this clause “is not an independent source of federal power” and “would vitiate the enumerated powers principle.” In other words, the clause can’t justify inherently unconstitutional actions.
Judge Vinson also went beyond the Virginia case in striking down the entire ObamaCare statute—paradoxically, an act of judicial modesty. Democrats intentionally left out a “severability” clause if one part of the bill was struck down, and the Administration repeatedly argued that the individual mandate was “essential” to the bill’s goals and mechanisms and compared it to “a finely crafted watch.” Judge Vinson writes that picking and choosing among thousands of sections would be “tantamount to rewriting a statute in an attempt to salvage it.”


We take a measure of vindication in the decision—David Rivkin and Lee Casey, the lawyers who argued the Florida case, first suggested in these pages that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Judge Vinson’s learned opinion has put down a Constitutional argument that will reverberate all the way to the Supreme Court.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

  1. FROM: THE FACE OF TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    “Revealed at last, from behind the mask the utterly lawless Ogabe regime only half-heartedly tries to keep in place:
    So now we have a White House that has declared its intent to ignore a declaratory judgment.
    The Administration has no right to do this.
    Obama’s White House has exactly two options:
    Comply with the ruling. This means that any and all activity authorized or mandated by the Statute (must) cease now.
    File an appeal and ask for a stay pending its hearing. If said stay is granted, then the ruling is held pending consideration.
    That’s it.
    Folks, this is clear.
    Couldn’t possibly be more so.
    By the way, Mark Levin pretty much sees it this way too. I agree with him, but I’ll go further – unless the Obama Administration either stands down now or files an appeal and seeks a stay and stands down until said stay is granted, if it is, then they have indeed crossed the line.
    The statement from The Obama Administration is a declaration that he is not a President, but rather a King and he arrogates to himself a “divine right.” The willful and intentional refusal of an organ of government to abide a lawful decision of a court of competent jurisdiction is a declaration of tyranny and lawlessness. Such a declaration has only one lawful response, and that is the preparation and filing of Articles of Impeachment on an immediate basis.
    And there it is. We now have a quiet Constitutional crisis fomented by an illegitimate regime attempting to run roughshod, plainly and undeniably, over the Constitution. Their contempt for the rule of law is obvious and undeniable. If we allow them to get away with this, we are indeed nothing more than sheep. We will fully and fairly deserve the shearing we’ll get from these radical-Left would-be despots.
    The Constitution has failed to protect us from tyranny, because we have failed to live up to its demands on our attention, our deliberation, and our honor, and failed to heed the clear warnings explicitly expressed in it, over the course of many decades. We have brought shame and ignominy to the legacy of our forebears. Rolling back the advances of Leftist tyranny is the only way we’ll redeem ourselves.
    I’ve argued against impeaching this villainous scumbag before. I won’t do so again. He’s literally setting himself up as a dictator here; he must be removed from his throne before its foundations are any more set than they already are.
    (Via Bill)
    UPDATE!!!!!!! Yet more contempt for the rule of law. This bastard must be legally and peaceably removed — before it’s no longer an option, and harsher measures must be considered.
    Fuel to the fire update! Throw the cocksucker out? Hell with that; lock him up.
    The Obama administration Wednesday repeated its threat to veto legislation that would curb its ability to regulate greenhouse gases.
    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said that the White House continues to oppose any efforts from Capitol Hill to hamstring her agency on climate change.
    Translation from Obamese: “Tyranny by bureaucracy and royal decree will continue, no matter what.” This man has no regard for either the Constitution or the expressed will of the people. He is a tyrant. Either he must be removed, or we must at long last squarely confront the reality that the government of the United States of America as it now exists bears very little resemblance at all to the one the Founders established. Full stop, end of story.”
    THE FACE OF TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    MUST READ ARTICLE!! THE FACE OF TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More Here:
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    “What happens if the DHS fails to comply by tomorrow? Issa may issue subpoenas for top officials to explain to his panel why they have failed to cooperate with Congressional oversight. The Democrats on the committee may try to block the subpoenas, but they will soon discover that ending up in the minority means losing control over that process, and a number of others as well. [THANK GOD!!!!!!!]
    Besides, that would only play into Issa’s hands. As his response indicates and the Daily Caller notes, Issa isn’t on a fishing expedition; someone at DHS, or perhaps several people, are informing him of real issues with their previous statements and conduct:
    During the week of January 10th, my staff obtained material that called into question the statements supplied by the Department during the September briefing…
    While the Department has announced its intention to cooperate with the Committee,
    I was disappointed to learn that on or about January 20, 2011, DHS’s Office of General Counsel instructed career staff in the Privacy Office not to search for documents responsive to my request.”
    The pushback comes as a bit of a power play from ranking member Elijah Cummings, who vaulted over former chair Edolphus Towns and two other more senior Democrats to reach that position. (snip).
    The White House has apparently decided to play along with Cummings in attempting to slow Issa’s charge into oversight of the Obama administration. However, the lack of responsiveness holds a great deal of political peril.
    If they continue to stonewall Issa, they could set some of their staff up for contempt of Congress charges, as well as paint themselves as opaque and defensive — and leave the distinct impression that they have something to hide. It’s early in Obama’s experience with split power in the Beltway, but so far, he’s off to a poor start.”
    Read More Here:

    Issa needs to be encouraged to play a little hardball with Hussein. Orly, if you would call for a call-in and email campaign to Issa’s DC and Local Offices to call a Press conference and announce Presidential Eligibility Hearings and intent to issue Subpoenas to SSA, State Department, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Occidental College, State of Hawaii and Kenya Hospitals.
    The Liberals think this is a Ha Ha that Hussein snubbed Issa. Find out if these institutions are as willing to ignore a Subpoena from Congress.
    John Robb
    Peoria, IL”
    “TheDC Exclusive – The Obama administration snubbed top GOP oversight official Rep. Darrell Issa on his first major document deadline as new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sending a short letter promising to comply in response to a major information request that was due Saturday at noon.
    But Issa is hitting back Tuesday with a demand key documents be sent in two days.”
    Read more: https://dailycaller.com/2011/02/01/president-obama-snubs-issa-on-first-major-document-deadline/#ixzz1CkTO0QPP

    EXCELLENT Videos and Articles:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *