Thursday, February 17, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Compassionat open minded Liberals want to hang black judge
But that's ok, because being a Liberal makes you a good person and anything you do is innately a good thing regardless of moral or ethical considerations. It's inflammatory rhetoric of the right that is the cause of all things evil.
Malawi To Make Farting In Public Illegal
Original Post: Reuters
By Jetpacker
Tue Feb 1, 2011 3:27pm EST
It’s comforting to know that at least one country in the world has their priorities set straight.
The African nation of Malawi — the country you never knew existed until Madonna adopted a child from there to be used as a fashion accessory — is set to pass a bill that includes new laws intended to “mold responsible and disciplined citizens.”
By far the most beneficial new law is the one that makes it illegal to fart in public.
That’s right, farting in public will no longer be just rude and discourteous to others, it will now be a crime. Which means farting will go on your criminal record.
Finally, a government that isn’t afraid to take on the most diabolical criminals.
Say all you want about armed robbery, there really is no crime more atrocious than crop-dusting in a crowded mall, forcing innocent and unsuspecting people to breathe in the foul gas that’s been fermenting inside somebody’s bowels.
These nefarious degenerates should be locked up for good in a room without ventilation and made to smell their crime for the remainder of their pathetic lives.
By Jetpacker
Tue Feb 1, 2011 3:27pm EST
It’s comforting to know that at least one country in the world has their priorities set straight.
The African nation of Malawi — the country you never knew existed until Madonna adopted a child from there to be used as a fashion accessory — is set to pass a bill that includes new laws intended to “mold responsible and disciplined citizens.”
By far the most beneficial new law is the one that makes it illegal to fart in public.
That’s right, farting in public will no longer be just rude and discourteous to others, it will now be a crime. Which means farting will go on your criminal record.
Finally, a government that isn’t afraid to take on the most diabolical criminals.
Say all you want about armed robbery, there really is no crime more atrocious than crop-dusting in a crowded mall, forcing innocent and unsuspecting people to breathe in the foul gas that’s been fermenting inside somebody’s bowels.
These nefarious degenerates should be locked up for good in a room without ventilation and made to smell their crime for the remainder of their pathetic lives.
Gun-Mandate Bill is Jab at Health Care Reform
Original Post: Outdoor Life
by J. R. ABSHER
The South Dakota state lawmaker who introduced a bill to require firearms ownership for adult residents admits it won’t pass Constitutional muster, but he wanted to make a point about the “individual mandate” included in the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
Titled “An Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others,” the bill would require every South Dakota adult 21 or older to buy a firearm within six months of becoming law.
But the bill’s author, Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, and its four additional co-sponsors know the measure doesn’t have the slightest chance of passage and will likely die during committee hearings.
“It’s no more constitutional than the federal health-care law,” Rep. Wick told the Mitchell Republic newspaper this week. “To be honest with you, it won’t pass. It’s unconstitutional.”
Rep. Wick, an avid hunter and firearms enthusiast, said the idea for the measure came to him while discussing the health care bill with friends in hunting camp this past fall. His hunting buddies reasoned that if the government could order people to have health insurance, why couldn’t it mandate they own a firearm?
“I thought, ‘Why not?’ ” Wick said. “It makes just as much sense for South Dakota to make the requirement and provide for everybody’s protection.”
Ironically, less than an hour after introducing House Bill 1237 on Monday, Jan. 31, Rep. Wick learned that Florida District Judge Roger Vinson had ruled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 unconstitutional in its entirety.
by J. R. ABSHER
The South Dakota state lawmaker who introduced a bill to require firearms ownership for adult residents admits it won’t pass Constitutional muster, but he wanted to make a point about the “individual mandate” included in the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
Titled “An Act to provide for an individual mandate to adult citizens to provide for the self defense of themselves and others,” the bill would require every South Dakota adult 21 or older to buy a firearm within six months of becoming law.
But the bill’s author, Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, and its four additional co-sponsors know the measure doesn’t have the slightest chance of passage and will likely die during committee hearings.
“It’s no more constitutional than the federal health-care law,” Rep. Wick told the Mitchell Republic newspaper this week. “To be honest with you, it won’t pass. It’s unconstitutional.”
Rep. Wick, an avid hunter and firearms enthusiast, said the idea for the measure came to him while discussing the health care bill with friends in hunting camp this past fall. His hunting buddies reasoned that if the government could order people to have health insurance, why couldn’t it mandate they own a firearm?
“I thought, ‘Why not?’ ” Wick said. “It makes just as much sense for South Dakota to make the requirement and provide for everybody’s protection.”
Ironically, less than an hour after introducing House Bill 1237 on Monday, Jan. 31, Rep. Wick learned that Florida District Judge Roger Vinson had ruled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 unconstitutional in its entirety.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Obama admin vows to continue implementing health care law despite ruling
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)