Original Post: Daily Caller
Obama administration officials are vowing to continue implementation of the president’s health care law “apace” despite a second ruling that the law is unconstitutional, calling the decision by Judge Robert Vinson “a plain case of judicial overreaching” well outside mainstream legal thought.
“We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld,” said Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter in a blog post published at WhiteHouse.gov.
Senior administration officials vowed implementation of the law would “proceed apace.” The Justice Department is appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the [health care law] is constitutional,” said Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, “The department intends to appeal this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.”
Officials dismissed the ruling as the work of a rogue judge and predicted other courts wouldn’t follow Vinson in ruling the entire law void.
“Those with any degree of perspective on the issue…will see this case as an outlier,” one senior administration official said, criticizing Vinson for the decision’s reference to the Boston Tea Party.
Asked by a reporter whether the ruling would have any practical impact on implementation of the law at all, a second senior official said “no…we don’t see any basis for that judgment.”
Obama officials predicted states party to the lawsuit would not use the ruling as a basis to resist mandates in the law. “I don’t believe any state would take that position,” said the first senior administration official.
However, lawyers representing states that are party to the lawsuit said states facing budget crises may see the ruling as a means to escape funding mandates in the law.
Cutter’s blog post argued that the health care law’s “individual mandate,” which imposes a sizable fine on those who do not purchase health insurance, is well within constitutional bounds.
Those claiming the provision “exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce because it penalizes ‘inactivity’ are simply wrong. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are actively making an economic decision that impacts all of us,” Cutter said.
Vinson warned in his ruling the legal precedent of the individual mandate could open the door to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Second federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional
Original Post: Daily Caller
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington.
In a decision steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, a federal judge has ruled for the second time the President Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional and must be “declared void” in full.
Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida also warned in the ruling that Obamacare’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
The ruling says the “individual mandate,” which imposes a fine on individuals who do not purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional and not “severable” from the full law. Therefore, “the entire act must be declared void,” the ruling says.
Vinson argues the mandate is an “unprecedented” exercise of federal power because it regulates a lack of economic activity, not economic activity itself.
Vinson is the second federal judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional after a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled the same late last year. Two other judges have upheld the law.
The Supreme Court is expected to have final say on the matter once the cases work their way up the court system.
Conservative critics of the health-care law quickly hailed the ruling.
“Judge Vinson rightly declared the healthcare law’s individual mandate unconstitutional, since the inactivity of not buying health insurance is not an “economic activity” that Congress has the power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause,” said Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and counsel to Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the case.
Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Conservative Study Committee, the conservative caucus of House Republicans, said ‘“Even if you ignore that Obamacare will slow our economy and lead to massive budget deficits, you cannot ignore that it violates the supreme law of the land.”
The ruling itself is steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, citing Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers and quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
“This is an opinion by a judge who is steeped in the history and tradition of the Constitution. He is someone who has studied the framing of the Constitution and seriously considered the purposes of the Constitution. What he wrote is a work of scholarship,” said Andrew M. Grossman, an attorney at Baker Hostetler working on the health care litigation.
Vinson even mentions British policies on tea just before the American Revolution to question whether the Founding Fathers would have ever approved what Vinson says is such a far-reaching law.
“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place,” the ruling says.
Vinson warns the health-care law’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
“The mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not ’slight,’ ‘trivial,’ or ‘indirect,’ but no impact whatsoever) — at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service,” the ruling says.
Generally, when courts strike down particular portion of laws, those laws are not rendered void in full. Rather, the particular portions are removed from the law.
Vinson argues in this case, the individual mandate is so critical to the design of the law that it cannot be struck down in isolation.
“If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate,” the ruling says, arguing that the individual mandate would indeed undermine the primary legislative goal of Obamacare.
The White House is holding a conference call with reporters at 4:45 p.m.
By Jonathan Strong - The Daily Caller
President Barack Obama is applauded after signing the health care bill, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington.
In a decision steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, a federal judge has ruled for the second time the President Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional and must be “declared void” in full.
Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida also warned in the ruling that Obamacare’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
The ruling says the “individual mandate,” which imposes a fine on individuals who do not purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional and not “severable” from the full law. Therefore, “the entire act must be declared void,” the ruling says.
Vinson argues the mandate is an “unprecedented” exercise of federal power because it regulates a lack of economic activity, not economic activity itself.
Vinson is the second federal judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional after a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled the same late last year. Two other judges have upheld the law.
The Supreme Court is expected to have final say on the matter once the cases work their way up the court system.
Conservative critics of the health-care law quickly hailed the ruling.
“Judge Vinson rightly declared the healthcare law’s individual mandate unconstitutional, since the inactivity of not buying health insurance is not an “economic activity” that Congress has the power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause,” said Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and counsel to Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the case.
Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Conservative Study Committee, the conservative caucus of House Republicans, said ‘“Even if you ignore that Obamacare will slow our economy and lead to massive budget deficits, you cannot ignore that it violates the supreme law of the land.”
The ruling itself is steeped in the words of the Founding Fathers, citing Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s writings in the Federalist Papers and quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
“This is an opinion by a judge who is steeped in the history and tradition of the Constitution. He is someone who has studied the framing of the Constitution and seriously considered the purposes of the Constitution. What he wrote is a work of scholarship,” said Andrew M. Grossman, an attorney at Baker Hostetler working on the health care litigation.
Vinson even mentions British policies on tea just before the American Revolution to question whether the Founding Fathers would have ever approved what Vinson says is such a far-reaching law.
“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place,” the ruling says.
Vinson warns the health-care law’s legal precedent could open the doors to virtually unlimited power by Congress.
“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” the ruling says.
“The mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not ’slight,’ ‘trivial,’ or ‘indirect,’ but no impact whatsoever) — at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service,” the ruling says.
Generally, when courts strike down particular portion of laws, those laws are not rendered void in full. Rather, the particular portions are removed from the law.
Vinson argues in this case, the individual mandate is so critical to the design of the law that it cannot be struck down in isolation.
“If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate,” the ruling says, arguing that the individual mandate would indeed undermine the primary legislative goal of Obamacare.
The White House is holding a conference call with reporters at 4:45 p.m.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Senator Chuck Schumer doesn't know the 3 branches of government
The House, the Senate and the Presidency. Sigh. And this man is allowed to make decisions that create laws that rule my life. But why should I be surprised. Our President doesn't know how many states are in the U.S. or how long he's allowed to serve and our Vice President doesn't know how many letters is in the word "Jobs".
Toning it down and a tone of civility by Liberals
It’s Art… Madison Theater Kills Off Right-Wingers For Fun In Latest Play
Original Post: Gateway Pundit
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 7:09 PM
Here’s more on that new national tone…
A Madison Theater is running a play where right-wingers are invited to dinner and then murdered.
It’s art.
620 WTMJ and The Daily Page reported:
Five lefty graduate students in Iowa City gather for weekly dinners to revel in their shared (and sometimes smug) world view. The first dinner we witness ignites a surprising shared mission when one of the students invites the truck driver who offered him roadside assistance to join them. This young man, a patriotic Desert Storm vet, first startles the group when he insists on saying grace before the vegan meal and then goes on to praise Hitler, alarming and repulsing the other dinners. Threats and violence ensue, and one of the hosts stabs him.
As he lies bleeding on an area rug, the quintet, after some debate and initial hand-wringing, decide that they have done society a favor by eliminating him and silencing his dangerous words. They also decide that since participating in protests and sit-ins has been a futile way to fight the power, this new dinner party/murder method may be a more effective technique in coping with right-wing adversaries.
Soon a parade of special guests is invited to dine, and when their dinner conversation proves repellent, they are given poisoned wine and buried in the backyard. Our smarty-pants grad students toast themselves for making a difference each time and feel vindicated when they learn that their first victim, the trucker, was implicated in a heinous crime. The death toll grows, and the tomato plants seen through the patio door flourish.
Just blow up global warming skeptics
Original Post: Daily Mail
October 1, 2010 by Don Surber
From the You Tube citation: “Whippersnapping climate campaign 10:10 teams up with legendary comic screenwriter Richard Curtis — you know, Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill, co-founded Comic Relief — and Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong to proudly present their explosive new mini-movie No Pressure. The film stars X-Files’ Gillian Anderson, together with Spurs players past and present — including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola — with music donated by Radiohead. Shot on 35mm by a 40-strong professional film crew led by director Dougal Wilson, No Pressure celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those are aren’t.”
Ho ho ho.
And you people who think that blowing up people you disagree with isn’t funny are squares.
It’s just jelly and bananas.
But it is not humor or satire. It is frustration. It is the fact that global warming believers cannot make a sane, logical and rational argument for their position. They call skeptics :deniers” as if we are a bunch of Nazis denying an event that actually occurred.
There is not a single prediction made by global warming believers that has come true in the last 25 years.
Not one.
And so they resort to violence.
Couched as humor — but not really funny.
No matter how smug they are.
By the way, don’t explosives release carbon into the air? Doesn’t the harvesting and transportation of bananas release carbon? I wonder what the carbon footprint was of this film.
From Anthony Watts: “What were they thinking? They weren’t, because this is going to have the exact opposite effect they intended it to have. I don’t have words to describe my disgust with the video.”
UPDATE: The organization has since made it a “private” video. Bluck, bluck, bluck. Well, they are Chicken Littles. But you can see how they made the film:
UPDATE II: A reader sent a new link. We shall see how long this lasts.
In light of the Arizona shooting the media/left has been telling us how our rhetoric is too heated, how we have to tone it down. It's the right wing speech that has caused the shooter to do this, even though everyone who knew him called him a left-wing nut job. But no, it's the violent right wing speech that has caused this and certainly not the compassionate, tolerant, open minded speech of the liberals.
I apologize for this but it's too funny.
Original Post: Gateway Pundit
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 7:09 PM
Here’s more on that new national tone…
A Madison Theater is running a play where right-wingers are invited to dinner and then murdered.
It’s art.
620 WTMJ and The Daily Page reported:
Five lefty graduate students in Iowa City gather for weekly dinners to revel in their shared (and sometimes smug) world view. The first dinner we witness ignites a surprising shared mission when one of the students invites the truck driver who offered him roadside assistance to join them. This young man, a patriotic Desert Storm vet, first startles the group when he insists on saying grace before the vegan meal and then goes on to praise Hitler, alarming and repulsing the other dinners. Threats and violence ensue, and one of the hosts stabs him.
As he lies bleeding on an area rug, the quintet, after some debate and initial hand-wringing, decide that they have done society a favor by eliminating him and silencing his dangerous words. They also decide that since participating in protests and sit-ins has been a futile way to fight the power, this new dinner party/murder method may be a more effective technique in coping with right-wing adversaries.
Soon a parade of special guests is invited to dine, and when their dinner conversation proves repellent, they are given poisoned wine and buried in the backyard. Our smarty-pants grad students toast themselves for making a difference each time and feel vindicated when they learn that their first victim, the trucker, was implicated in a heinous crime. The death toll grows, and the tomato plants seen through the patio door flourish.
Just blow up global warming skeptics
Original Post: Daily Mail
October 1, 2010 by Don Surber
From the You Tube citation: “Whippersnapping climate campaign 10:10 teams up with legendary comic screenwriter Richard Curtis — you know, Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill, co-founded Comic Relief — and Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong to proudly present their explosive new mini-movie No Pressure. The film stars X-Files’ Gillian Anderson, together with Spurs players past and present — including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola — with music donated by Radiohead. Shot on 35mm by a 40-strong professional film crew led by director Dougal Wilson, No Pressure celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those are aren’t.”
Ho ho ho.
And you people who think that blowing up people you disagree with isn’t funny are squares.
It’s just jelly and bananas.
But it is not humor or satire. It is frustration. It is the fact that global warming believers cannot make a sane, logical and rational argument for their position. They call skeptics :deniers” as if we are a bunch of Nazis denying an event that actually occurred.
There is not a single prediction made by global warming believers that has come true in the last 25 years.
Not one.
And so they resort to violence.
Couched as humor — but not really funny.
No matter how smug they are.
By the way, don’t explosives release carbon into the air? Doesn’t the harvesting and transportation of bananas release carbon? I wonder what the carbon footprint was of this film.
From Anthony Watts: “What were they thinking? They weren’t, because this is going to have the exact opposite effect they intended it to have. I don’t have words to describe my disgust with the video.”
UPDATE: The organization has since made it a “private” video. Bluck, bluck, bluck. Well, they are Chicken Littles. But you can see how they made the film:
UPDATE II: A reader sent a new link. We shall see how long this lasts.
In light of the Arizona shooting the media/left has been telling us how our rhetoric is too heated, how we have to tone it down. It's the right wing speech that has caused the shooter to do this, even though everyone who knew him called him a left-wing nut job. But no, it's the violent right wing speech that has caused this and certainly not the compassionate, tolerant, open minded speech of the liberals.
I apologize for this but it's too funny.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Secret Service embarrised to investigate political dissent
Jacob Volkmann, UFC fighter, gets visit from Secret Service after saying he wants to fight Obama
Original Post: NY Daily News
By Nina Mandell
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
John McCain's not the only one in Washington a little down on Ultimate Fighting.
The Secret Service doesn't seem to be big fans either.
Jacob Volkmann, a UFC lightweight, got a visit from the agency after declaring in a post-fight interview that he wants to fight President Obama because he disagrees with his health care policy.
What happened next shocked the 30-year-old Minnesota-based fighter.
After an unknown source reported his remarks to the Secret Service (who decided it was legit enough for a follow up), an officer was sent to pay Volkmann a visit, he told MMA Weekly.
When the officer showed up on Tuesday, Volkmann was busy coaching a youth practice.
"One of the other coaches that was helping me out, they said there was a cop and another guy out there waiting for me," he told the website.
When he went outside, a Secret Service agent was waiting -- with a picture of the fighter and his exact quotes on a piece of paper.
"He was like 'is this what you said?' and I said, 'yes it is.' He's like 'I want to let you know I'm a little embarrassed for coming here and doing this because obviously nothing happened.' He actually apologized for coming, but he had to come. He wanted to make sure I wasn't going to D.C to hurt the President," Volkmann said.
Volkmann told the website he thinks that a member of Obama's campaign team sent him an email threatening to tell the Secret Service and FBI about his controversial remarks.
But the outspoken fighter, who works as a chiropractor when he doesn't have people in choke holds, said he doesn't mind speaking out on what he believes in -- and won't let a visit from the Secret Service stop him.
"People were misunderstanding the point of view I was going for with the health care plan," he told MMA Weekly. "I'm thinking about the provider, I'm a chiropractor, so I'm thinking about my point of view, not everyone getting insurance. They don't have to worry about getting denied, which is good I guess, just not good for health care providers."
Original Post: NY Daily News
By Nina Mandell
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
John McCain's not the only one in Washington a little down on Ultimate Fighting.
The Secret Service doesn't seem to be big fans either.
Jacob Volkmann, a UFC lightweight, got a visit from the agency after declaring in a post-fight interview that he wants to fight President Obama because he disagrees with his health care policy.
What happened next shocked the 30-year-old Minnesota-based fighter.
After an unknown source reported his remarks to the Secret Service (who decided it was legit enough for a follow up), an officer was sent to pay Volkmann a visit, he told MMA Weekly.
When the officer showed up on Tuesday, Volkmann was busy coaching a youth practice.
"One of the other coaches that was helping me out, they said there was a cop and another guy out there waiting for me," he told the website.
When he went outside, a Secret Service agent was waiting -- with a picture of the fighter and his exact quotes on a piece of paper.
"He was like 'is this what you said?' and I said, 'yes it is.' He's like 'I want to let you know I'm a little embarrassed for coming here and doing this because obviously nothing happened.' He actually apologized for coming, but he had to come. He wanted to make sure I wasn't going to D.C to hurt the President," Volkmann said.
Volkmann told the website he thinks that a member of Obama's campaign team sent him an email threatening to tell the Secret Service and FBI about his controversial remarks.
But the outspoken fighter, who works as a chiropractor when he doesn't have people in choke holds, said he doesn't mind speaking out on what he believes in -- and won't let a visit from the Secret Service stop him.
"People were misunderstanding the point of view I was going for with the health care plan," he told MMA Weekly. "I'm thinking about the provider, I'm a chiropractor, so I'm thinking about my point of view, not everyone getting insurance. They don't have to worry about getting denied, which is good I guess, just not good for health care providers."
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Four year old recites Presidential Oath of Office
In doing research for my post on the Washington Post reporter and MSNBC contributor who can't read I came upon this little gem.
Now we have four year olds who can recite the Presidential Oath of Office better than our President!
Google hosted news
"...under the gaze of more than two million crowded onto Washington's National Mall and millions more around the world, Obama said: "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.
"So help me God."
As specified in the US Constitution, the word "faithfully" precedes the phrase "execute the office," but the chief justice, in his first presidential inauguration, read that part of the oath incorrectly...."
Now we have four year olds who can recite the Presidential Oath of Office better than our President!
Google hosted news
"...under the gaze of more than two million crowded onto Washington's National Mall and millions more around the world, Obama said: "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.
"So help me God."
As specified in the US Constitution, the word "faithfully" precedes the phrase "execute the office," but the chief justice, in his first presidential inauguration, read that part of the oath incorrectly...."
Washington post reporter Ezra Klein can't read
"You can say two things about it [the Constitution], one that it has no binding power. And two. The issue with the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think their following. The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believes it says differs from person to person."
You can say that it has no binding power, but you'd be wrong.
Wow, just wow. No wonder he finds it so confusing. He doesn't know what it says. The Constitution is indeed binding. In fact, all other laws are subservient to the Constitution. He is one of the liberal intelligentsia elite, the wise the smart. Yet he can't figure out the language of the Constitution? Yes, it's a touch old. It's not really that hard. Just get yourself a dictionary for some of the more archaic terms and there you go. If you have an ounce of critical thinking skills you can infer the definitions from the context (that means what's going on in and around the sentence.
So I suppose if a document is to hard to read you can just make up what it says. But he has a job. Someone paid him to say that and other people (including myself) watched him say it. Oh, and I'm also given to understand that he's a Political Science Major. I'd get my money back if I were him.
Well, this is for the Ezra Kleins of the world who have a hard time reading.
And.
Apparently there is also a two year old child with greater comprehension of the Constitution than Ezra Klein
We all knew that there were two year olds with greater comprehension than Washington Post reporters, now we have proof. astoundingly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)