Originally posted by whodey It should be noted that social security and the minimum wage were also both declared unconstitutional, however, the Supremes overturned these decisions.
What you mean to say is, the Supreme Court declared them constitutional?
Originally posted by whodey So basically any ruling by a federal judge is meaningless except to perhaps get the Supremes to hear the case at some point, am I correct?
Originally posted by whodey So it would appear that although judge Vinson is the toast of the town in conservative corners, perhaps he should be blasted for not imposing an injunction. Why on earth would anyone declare something unconstitutional and not try to enforce their ruling?
Anyone?
The usual rationale is that the judge acknowledges that in the case before him/her, the constitutionality of the law is not settled by his/her decision, and will be appealed, and decides that the potential harm done by imposing an injunction against something that is eventually declared to be constitutional, outweighs the potential harm done by not imposing an injunction against something that is eventually declared to be unconstitutional. You are free to disagree with the judge, but that's the rational explanation for the judge's seemingly irrational action.
Further, the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that the 26 states involved in the suit need not take any action to implement the health care act while it is in the courts. One of those states AG's has already declared that his state "was relieved of any obligations or duties to carry out the statute."
Originally posted by JS357 The usual rationale is that the judge acknowledges that in the case before him/her, the constitutionality of the law is not settled by his/her decision, and will be appealed, and decides that the potential harm done by imposing an injunction against something that is eventually declared to be constitutional, outweighs the potential harm done by not imposing an ...[text shortened]... y out the statute."
Cato actually says it would be "reasonable to argue" that the 26 States who were parties to the case need not take further steps to implement the law. The article then says that if they did not and the administration tried to force them to do so by legal means, this would have a "salutary effect" in clarifying the situation.
It seems most likely the 11th Circuit where the appeal of Vinson's ruling will be heard will decide the issue of whether or not States are now free to disregard the law pending the appeal as a preliminary to their decision on the merits.
Originally posted by no1marauder Cato actually says it would be "reasonable to argue" that the 26 States who were parties to the case need not take further steps to implement the law. The article then says that if they did not and the administration tried to force them to do so by legal means, this would have a "salutary effect" in clarifying the situation.
It seems most ...[text shortened]... e to disregard the law pending the appeal as a preliminary to their decision on the merits.
Yes, but these guys are thinking in terms of years, concerning federal challenge on noncompliance with, and nonenforcement of the mandate. There is no easy way for the federal government to accelerate the process of "enforcing enforcement" of the mandate. The individual mandate provision does not kick in until 2014. How would the federal government show that individuals or the states ARE disregarding the law, before then? Of more immediate concern to the Administration is that Vinson's ruling had the effect of striking down the entire act because the plaintiffs successfully argued that because the act did not contain a severability clause, the entire act fell if any part fell.
Originally posted by JS357 Yes, but these guys are thinking in terms of years, concerning federal challenge on noncompliance with, and nonenforcement of the mandate. There is no easy way for the federal government to accelerate the process of "enforcing enforcement" of the mandate. The individual mandate provision does not kick in until 2014. How would the federal government show that i ...[text shortened]... because the act did not contain a severability clause, the entire act fell if any part fell.
You're confused; of course, the mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014 so non-enforcement of it now is a non-issue. But their are other provisions of the Act that are already in effect and some which are to be phased in over the next year or so while the appellate Courts deal with the various appeals. Vinson's decision invalidated the entire law as you mentioned, so none of these provisions would be enforceable if he issued an injunction - not just the mandate. Since he didn't, Cato is arguing that States could make a legal argument they need do nothing but that is a dubious claim. If the States refused to do something they were supposed to do under the law, it would be a simple matter for the Federal Government to show that the State was disregarding the law - indeed, some State AGs are saying their States should disregard the law because of Vinson's ruling. Therefore, I don't see why you think there would be any difficulty getting a court to rule on such a controversy.
Originally posted by no1marauder You're confused; of course, the mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014 so non-enforcement of it now is a non-issue. But their are other provisions of the Act that are already in effect and some which are to be phased in over the next year or so while the appellate Courts deal with the various appeals. Vinson's decision invalidated the entire law as yo ...[text shortened]... why you think there would be any difficulty getting a court to rule on such a controversy.
Then I was unclear in my statement. Of course the court would be ready to hear a case involving a part of the law that is in effect now.
Originally posted by whodey Since two federal courts have found aspects of Obamacare to be unconstitutional, should the federal government go ahead with Obamacare anyway?
Yes they should...just to see you throw a tantrum over it!😀
07 Feb '11 16:11
Should Obamacare go forward?
Back to Top