Yet Another Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Mandate Unconstitutional

It’s not like Barack Hussein Obama – a “constitutional scholar,” we were told – gives one slimy cockroach crap about the U.S. Constitution.  Recently, before deciding that his government would not follow (i.e. that the Obama regime would BREAK) federal immigration law and refuse to deport hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who had had their day in court and LOST, Obama told a Hispanic group the following in explaining why he couldn’t do what they wanted:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

And then a few weeks later Obama did the very thing he himself had categorically stated was both undemocratic and unconstitutional.

He also previously similarly ignored federal law – law passed by both branches of Congress and signed into law by Democrat President Clinton – and decreed that his government would ignore the Defense of Marriage Act.  He has now held that the power of law resides within the power of the Führer alone.  The law doesn’t matter if Obama doesn’t like it.  He alone as our Messiah stands transcendantly above the law and the rule of law.

So it doesn’t surprise me whatsoever that he rammed a despicable undemocratic and unconstitutional takeover of the health care system.  He has PROVEN that he doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution or the rule of law.

Pa. fed judge knocks down key Obamacare health care requirement
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The requirement in the national health-care overhaul law that individuals buy health insurance is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday in a question that the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to settle.

The suit decided by Judge Christopher C. Conner in Harrisburg is one of more than 30 lawsuits nationwide that have been filed over the 2010 law that is President Barack Obama’s signature initiative.

Conner, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush, said the individual mandate is an unconstitutional extension of authority granted to the federal government under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“The nation undoubtably faces a health care crisis,” Conner said. “Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant. The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers, and Congress’s efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers.”

But Conner rejected an argument by the plaintiffs — a York County couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman and Gregory Bachman — that the mandate is “disastrous to this nation’s future, such as the Bachmans’ prediction of America evolving into a socialist state. These suggestions of cataclysmic results … are both unproductive and unpersuasive.”

While most of the massive law can remain intact, Conner said, certain provisions are linked to the health insurance requirement and must also be struck down. Those provisions are designed to guarantee that insurance companies cannot discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions.

Separate lawsuits have already reached appeals courts in Richmond, Va., Atlanta and Cincinnati, with one of those courts ruling against the mandate.

It’s time to return to the wisdom of Ronald Reagan who confronted such a socialist takeover attempt of medicine in his own day and said:

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

The polls overwhelmingly demonstrated that what was true in Reagan’s day is every bit as true today.  The American people never wanted this vile and un-American monstrosity.

It is unconstitutional.  It is an unconstitutional TAKEOVER meant to impose socialism.  Obama knows it; that’s why he will NOT let this come before the Surpreme Court where it would be overturned.  Rather, he has done everything he could to delay that day of reckoning.

Which is paralyzing businesses who need to know their cost if they are going to take the risk of hiring workers.

Barack Obama has been granting waivers to the very leftwing unions and businesses who helped Obama impose ObamaCare so that they would not have to pay the way all the OTHER Americans will have to pay.

Impeach Obama from office before he damages this nation beyond the possibility of repair.  Because that point of no return is rushing toward us.

Tags: , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Yet Another Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Mandate Unconstitutional”

  1. Penumbra Says:

    I have just read an article in the Swedish press, saying that the democrat David Weprin lost to republican Bob Turner in New York. According to the article, Bob Turner did run his campaign as a sort of referendum on Obama. New York has been a strong supporter of the democrats since 1920, but that has changed now . And the article interprets this more as sign of Obama’s declining popularity rather than Bob Turner’s own gainings. Looks good.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Both Turner AND the Democrat Weprin said that the election was a referendum on Obama.

    Now, when you have BOTH candidates saying it was all about Obama, it is a little crazy to deny it had anything to do with Obama. But that is exactly what DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are saying.

    New York continues to be reliably liberal overall; but that may well continue to erode.

    A big part of this election had to do with Obama’s incessant attack on Israel. The Orthodox Jews who made up the lion’s share of the district are beyond angry, and Obama refused to listen. And that is why former Mayor and lifelong Democrat Ed Koch started saying to vote Republican to send a message to a man who is incapable of listening.

  3. TPR Says:

    “Wave if you have a Waiver!” :-/

    Good article.

    “…that’s why he will NOT let this come before the Surpreme Court…”

    How will he prevent cases reaching &/or being heard by the SCOTUS? (another 9/11 type event, but this time blow up the SC Bldg.? Kill off any right-leaning SC Justices between now & then & appointing more of his own left-leaning tap dancers?)

    Liberty (filed 1st “private” anti-ObamaCare lawsuit same day Barry signed it into law 3/23/10) will be filing their brief to the SC within a few weeks & expects to know by end of year what date their case will be heard by the SC in early 2012 w/final decision expected by June 2012, per their email news alert dated tonight 9/16/11, fwiw.

  4. Penumbra Says:

    After I posted my comment, I went online and searched for information. I found a great website, “Human Events”, which gives the same explanation as you, Michael. I have a friend who himself is Jewish. He said once that the young American Jews no longer care about Israel’s fate and are mostly liberal supporters of Obama. But that seems to have changed.

  5. Michael Eden Says:


    Obama can’t necessarily prevent this case from being heard (although the man has demonstrated flagrent disregard for the rule of law – e.g., Obama said he would not follow the Defense of Marriage Act which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton; e.g., Obama said he would not follow immigration law even though he himself said that doing what he did would be basically unAmerican, undemocratic and unconstitutional before he did it anyway).

    But Obama COULD HAVE allowed this case to go immediately before the Supreme Court. He did have that power. And not only did he not exercise that power in this case, he is in fact insisting it go through every appeal process possible before it gets to SCOTUS. He is in effect playing a delay game, hoping he can either put this off until after the 2012 election or that a conservative justice will die or ANYTHING to bail him out.

    He doesn’t want it to go to the Court now because he will lose and he knows he will lose.

  6. Michael Eden Says:


    It is true that – by and large – American Jews do not give a fig about Israel and view it as an embarassment. American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal, and the idea of a nation – even of their own people – being an international pariah and an outrage to the “international community” is far worse of an affront to them than Jews being driven into the sea and annihilated.

    It is a genuine tragedy, but I care FAR more about national Israel than most American Jews ever have or ever will.

    The particular community in NY-9 is an orthodox community (Hacidic, I believe), and while they still stupidly vote Democrat, they are at least slightly more conservative. And very pro-Israel.

    Many American Jews are first of all profoundly secular rather than religious. And they have bought into the notion that evangelical Christians are everything that the mainstream media wants them to think, and do not realize/understand that many Christians (such as myself) passionately support Israel and believe very much that God will ultimately save the Jews AS His special chosen people. Which is to say, they are every bit as guilty as the Christians who previously ignorantly labeled Jews as “Christ killers.”

    True Christians understand that 1) that while the Jews rejected Jesus, it was the Romans who executed Jesus; and 2) that we’re ALL “Christ killers,” in that Christ died in our place for our sins when He could have called on at least 12 legions of angels (when ONE angel by himself could have rescued Him).

  7. Penumbra Says:

    Absolutely so, Michael. We know who killed Jesus Christ. Some groups within the Christian world are now also trying to slay the legacy of Him. We need to defend Christianity and to support Israel. I guess indifferent liberal Jews will wake up if Israel’s existence is threatened, but then it may be too late.

  8. Michael Eden Says:


    Your less cynical than I am about liberal Jews. It’s not the “Jews” part that makes me cynical about them, but the “liberal” part.

    I don’t think most American Jews will CARE if Israel is genuinely threatened; I don’t think those people will actually care until the bad guys come after THEM personally. THEN they’ll wake up after it’s too late to do anything other than bleet like the sheep they are.

    Mind you, I hope YOU’RE right about them, Penumbra. I pray for the Jews, even if they’re liberals. And YOUR hope for them would be far better for them than my cynical expectations.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: