Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

A federal judge fired a massive shot across the bow of behemoth government run amok over the lives of the people today in ruling key aspects of ObamaCare violate the Constitution.

Federal judge deems part of ObamaCare unconstitutional
By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller
12/13/2010

A federal judge in Virginia has determined that the part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson deemed that part of the law unconstitutional in the first part of what is sure to be a case that will end up in the Supreme Court. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli led the fight in his state.

“I am gratified we prevailed. This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said in a statement.

Hudson said the part of the law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional because it “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

The judge focused on a the analogy that Obama and Kathleen Sabelius have repeatedly used (along with the government legal team) that health care was akin to auto insurance, along with the bait-and-switch tactics of Obama repeatedly promising the American people that ObamaCare would not raise their taxes, only to use the argument that ObamaCare actually was a tax when it was conenient.

Let me say this: by the Democrats’ own use of “auto insurance” as their analogy, we have death panels galore.

How many people have been forced to surrender their drivers’ licence or to auto insurance?

Don’t pay your registration fees or your insurance premiums?  Lose your license.  Can’t pass a test?  Lose your license.  Drive under the influence?  Lose your license.

So for all the screaming about how terrible Sarah Palin was for coining the phrase “death panels,” again, by the Democrats very own analogy, we’re going to have death panels galore.  If you don’t dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’, the federal government can take away your healthcare and allow you to die.

So the next time you hear a liberal tell you that health care is like a divers license or auto insurance, go ahead and say, “Alright you Nazis; so it is.”

Conservatives, for their part, have agreed with U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in saying that ObamaCare is nothing like auto insurance or drivers licenses at all.  For the simple reasons that both auto insurance and drivers licenses are regulated by the STATES, not by the federal government.  And that the federal government is clearly usurping power – again, even with the Democrats’ own analogy – that at best the STATES SHOULD have.  And that, further, an individual is NOT in fact forced to purchase auto insurance or obtain a drivers license; as they can freely choose not to drive.

Or maybe I went to sleep and woke up to jackbooted government police kicking down doors and forcing every American to purchase an auto insurance policy.

And, again, conservatives have been loudly decrying the incredibly deceitful and cynical tactic of promising the American people that ObamaCare is not a tax, and that their taxes won’t go up “one dime,” only to say after it is passed (on the back of a demonstrable lie) that it really was a tax all along, after all.

Do we really want to foment a political system in which flagrent dishonesty with the American people is the best policy?  And the more outrageous the government’s lies, the better the chance they have in advancing their agenda?

Thank God this monstrosity finally hit a roadblock.  I guess in that extremely limited sense, ObamaCare is like driving a car, after all.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional”

  1. LJ Says:

    Conservatives agree with a conservative judge – what a shock! Health-care reform is good for the country, but we all know the Supreme Court will kill it.

  2. Daniel B. Says:

    Excellent…a bit longer than my own post, but still a good bit of commentary on the ruling. Any guesses on what the Supremes will do? Or will it end up being a partisan divide with Justice Kennedy making the decision?

    Thanks for the post.

  3. Daniel B. Says:

    LJ sounds more loud than really very thoughtful. Can you add something to the discussion rather than just trolling the topic and ripping on the commentary?

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for sharing your view about the nature of politics and the nature of society.

    And what IS your view, as a liberal?

    It is that what is right and wrong is purely a matter of ideology and of power. Because if a conservative judge makes a ruling because he is a conservative, then surely liberal judges make rulings because they are liberals.

    Bingo.

    That is precisely the sort of society liberals have been striving for.

    Btw, I notice the subtle bait-and-switch: health care REFORM is good for the country. Who wouldn’t agree with that? But we’re talking about ObamaCare, which does all sorts of awful things, and is NOT good for the country. Or constitutional.

    Which is why, I think, you recognize that the Supreme Court will ultimately overturn this monstrosity.

    This gets back to Obama’s central “hopey changey” crap. “Change” is only good when it is good change. And Obama clearly isn’t bringing good change to America – unless you think, for instance, that a 29% increase in unemployment under his watch (from 7.6% to 9.8%) is “good” change.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Daniel,

    Thank you.

    History shows that the Supreme Court has become somewhat loathe to issue sweeping societal changes (probably because their history of doing so is ugly and tragic). So they like to peck away at the margins of things.

    Still, this is an “in your face” attempt by Obama and the Democrats to impose sweeping societal change by political fiat, rather than by the will of the people.

    I think, when it comes before them (and this decision today makes it certain the Supreme Court will HAVE to hear the case), the Court will search for a way to defeat the impact of ObamaCare with as fine-combed of a ruling as judicially possible.

    While it will likely end up on a partisan divide, there’s always hope. As an example, I watched the Bush vs. Gore special on Fox News. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that what Gore wanted was a violation of equal protections under the Constitution, and then they ruled 7-2 in favor of Bush. That meant that first all four, and then half, of the liberal justices agreed with the “right” side.

    Hopefully they can muster that kind of clear thinking again.

  6. Timely Renewed Says:

    Judge Hudson’s decision is good news, and we all hope that it will prevail when Obamacare finally reaches the Supreme Court two years from now. However, that is not certain, and there remain substantial political powers who regard this vast extension of federal power as acceptable based upon the Supreme Court’s vast expansion of the interstate commerce clause since 1937. The only sure way to stop not only Obamacare, but the innumerable other ways in which the federal government has increased its power beyond the original scope of the Constitution, is to reverse those Supreme Court cases and restore the interstate commerce clause to its original meaning. Given how entrenched these Supreme Court precedents are, this will require a constitutional amendment restating the original, very limited scope of the interstate commerce clause. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

  7. Chris Taus Says:

    This is not a precedent for severability. I’m no legal expert but I do believe various portions of McCain-Feingold have been declared unconstitutional.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m no legal expert either.

    But I know what you mean about severability.

    That said, what you are correctly concluding from the legal opinion is one thing, but in practical terms it is something else entirely. Legally speaking, the judge did not rule that the entire law needed to be struck down; practically speaking, numerous experts on the health care law have concluded that if the “mandates” were struck down the entire law would in effect collapse, because there would be no means to fund it.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    Timely Renewed,

    Republicans have several possibilities. 1) To at every level refuse to fund ObamaCare as money needs to be be spent. 2) To use the power of the states to balk at every turn and frustrate the implementation of the law. And 3) take over the White House and either repeal it then or simply refuse to allow its implementation at the federal level. And, of course, hope that a liberal justice kicks the bucket so that we can finally break the deadlock in the court (while simultaneously hoping that the conservative justices live long, healthy lives).

    A book that everyone should read is “Men in Black” by Mark Levin. It shows the incredible danger of judicial activism that has plagued America from nearly the beginning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: