# Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?



## Publius1787 (Feb 1, 2011)

*Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*

*1.* Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!

*2.* The Judge denied those 26 States injunctive relief on the grounds that the ENTIRE LAW IS VOID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there is no evidence that Obama will not abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality. Thus, by ruling Obamacare unconstituional he is by default granting injunctive releif. *P75* Vinson opinion

*3.* The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling. 
*4.* No stay has yet to be granted by any higher court. 
*5.* Failure to comply with the Judiciary branch of government and being held in contempt is an impeachable offence! 

Mark Levin Explains This Perfectly!


----------



## Megatron (Feb 1, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> 
> *1.* Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!
> 
> ...



Let me guess, you would then have Palin on a white horse ride into the oval office and take command of county?


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 1, 2011)

So Obmam did it all?
None of the congresspersons from those 26 states voted for it?
Any of them re-elected last nov?


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Megatron said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> ...



It didnt take long for someone to spam and troll their way in to this thread in order to make a compleatly non-related comment. Do you ever think before you post? When a topic is presented do you immediatly speak of someting compleatly different every time you post? What is the reason for your willful ignorance? Are you blinded by you hate for conservatives so much that you lose your presence of mind and are unable to hold a relevent arguement? Any credebility that you think you have is demolished by your above comment. It shows alot about you and the manner you respond to debates in this forum. Please stop making compleatly unrelated remarks in order to gain an unrelated responce in your obvious attempt to hijack this thread.


----------



## Megatron (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Megatron said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



No, I have just been stuck in a snow storm the past few days and find it fun to piss off tools like you who get so upset over some of the things people say to you on the internet.  My favorite on this site is people like you who try to act so intelligent with words like "compleatly" sound it out buddy ahahah nice try kid


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> So Obmam did it all?
> None of the congresspersons from those 26 states voted for it?
> Any of them re-elected last nov?



Congressmen are popularly elected. The States are compleatly independant of them. Thus you have absolutly no arguement here. It wasnt always this way though. Before progressivs amendmend the constitution, the Senate was chosen by the state legislatures to speak on behalf of the states. If that were true today Obamacare would have never been implemented. 

Furthermore, only Obama can abide by the court ruling because he is the only one responsible for contunuing with the task of enforcing the law. Once a bill is signed in to law Congress has absolutly nothing to do with it unless they wish to amend it by vote. Do I really need to explain all this to you or are you just playing stupid?


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Megatron said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Megatron said:
> ...



I Never claimed to be a good speller. In fact, I am famous for my lack of spelling ability. Your accusation of me "trying to be so intellegent" is the equivilancy of entering a fact not in evidence. A claim that you cannot make because you refuse to discuss the topic at hand. And your excuse of accusing me of exactly what you are doing wont hold water here. And I see youve also called me kid. That speaks more about you than anything else youve written. Of course, I am not the guy with the cartoon charicter as his avatar. People make such comments of name calling and belittleing (like what you just did) in order to make themselves feel good about themselves. In reality it shows weakness and the need for artificial self motovation for a weak and unstable mind. As no doubt your boredom in the snow has intensified.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 2, 2011)

More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.


----------



## Megatron (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Megatron said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



I have no desire to discuss the topic at hand with you, none at all, you are not capible of objective discourse kid. All you want to do is attack anyone who has a different view of the world as you. You sir, are a communist.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Megatron said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Megatron said:
> ...



I think you just described yourself perfectly! Though unlike you, I have proof. See here>>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3277847-post2.html . Is this objective discourse? Atticking someone because their different view of the word huh? You mean like you did in your first post in this thread? Ive been begging for civil discourse. See here >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3277862-post4.html . Of course, it would be hard for you to have civil discourse if you have a compleat inability to actually comment on the topic of the thread you are posting in. But that would be asking too much from you huh?


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 2, 2011)

Megatron said:


> I have no desire to discuss the topic at hand with you, none at all, you are not *capible* of objective discourse kid. All you want to do is attack anyone who has a different view of the world as you. You sir, are a communist.



derp......


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> *3.* The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.



Should those states also hold themselves in contempt for continuing to voluntarily implement the ACA?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.



That's a new one coming from the left who doesn't even pretend to be great defenders of the constitution. What part of the constitution are conservatives unraveling?


----------



## Sallow (Feb 2, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.
> ...



Liberals have always defended the Constitution, heck they wrote it. Conservatives have always opposed it in principle while holding it up as some sort of holy religious tome. Heck, one Conservative painter has Jesus handing it to the founding fathers.

What are the Conservatives unraveling? The ability of government to collect taxes and support the general welfare. The only thing the right seeks to uphold, is military spending. And even there they screw the pooch. They want a conquering military..not a defensive one.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 2, 2011)

Megatron said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> ...


Plus it's racist not to allow Barry to do whatever he wants.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 2, 2011)

Fed judges have also given it a pass.  So we are in a bit of a catch until the SCOTUS declares one way or another.

It should be put on hold until that time.  Obama and the dems know what they are doing is wrong, but are betting that they will get a pass or have it in place by the time the SCOTUS rules.

All they realy have to do is get rid of the unconstitutional parts, and go forward with everything else.

If they didn't put Rangell in the street, obama is untouchable.


----------



## goldcatt (Feb 2, 2011)

Why isn't this crap in conspiracy theories? Or at least the Romper Room.

Magic double super secret phantom default injunctions. Where do they come up with this shit?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Check your history.  Most of our wars were started with a (D) in the WH.

Isolationism was a conservative idea.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Liberals have always defended the Constitution, heck they wrote it. Conservatives have always opposed it in principle while holding it up as some sort of holy religious tome. Heck, one Conservative painter has Jesus handing it to the founding fathers.



You are either truly naive or deliberatly obtuse if you think liberals then are ANYTHING like liberals now.



Sallow said:


> What are the Conservatives unraveling? The ability of government to collect taxes and support the general welfare. The only thing the right seeks to uphold, is military spending. And even there they screw the pooch. They want a conquering military..not a defensive one.



Then obviously you are the one who needs to read the constitution if you think the general welfare clause means the government can tax for whatever it wants. One of you 'liberal' heroes James Madison commented on this very issue and how it was meant to be interpreted in the federalist papers. In a nutshell the intent was for the genearl welfare clause to refer SPECIFICALLY to the enumerated powers that follow. Provide health care isn't there. And conservatives having a problem with government fining people for not buying health care or tax people to provide it does NOT mean that conservatives are generally trying to avoid and get rid of taxes. Just the ones the fed has no authority to collect in the first place


----------



## Megatron (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Megatron said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Listen Pubes, I don't know how many times i have to tell you, i don't care about your topic, your a crazy old man who lives in a fantasy world. Look at all the other post people wrote laughing at you. Your a joke, just stop, your embarrassing your self and your family


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.



Actually, you have it completely backwards.  It was the left that pushed the envelope and started unraveling the nation and the Constitution.  It is the conservatives and libertarians who are pushing back.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 2, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Megatron said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Typical conservative playing the race card


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> [Liberals have always defended the Constitution, heck they wrote it. Conservatives have always opposed it in principle while holding it up as some sort of holy religious tome.



That statement is patently untrue and does nothing more than reflect your own considerable bias.  Both so called liberals and conservatives over the years have bastardized the Constitution to make it mean things that it does not.  

Furthermore, while you're correct that liberals wrote the Constitution, those liberals have next to nothing in common with the people who refer to themselves as liberals today.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 2, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > More and more Conservatives are pushing the envelope in terms of trying to unravel the nation (Much like they were in opposition to the American Revolution, instigated the Whiskey Rebellion and started the War of Southern Treachery) and the United States Constitution, and more and more the nation will push back.
> ...



yea.....except for that torture and denial of human rights stuff, Conservatives have done pretty good.

ummm.....except for those parts of the Constitution they want to repeal


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *3.* The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.
> ...



The Businesses and individuals who are taxed and regulated by the federal government cannot determin their own tax rate and avoid federal regulations no matter how much the state tries to block it. Thoes taxes are paid directly to the federal government and are also regulated directly by the federal government.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Here, about 30 seconds in to this video, Milton Freidman distinguishes the difference between classical liberals and modern day liberals. Your claim that "liberals wrote it" is absolutly false in every since of the definition of the true meaning of liberal.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Fed judges have also given it a pass.  So we are in a bit of a catch until the SCOTUS declares one way or another.
> 
> It should be put on hold until that time.  Obama and the dems know what they are doing is wrong, but are betting that they will get a pass or have it in place by the time the SCOTUS rules.
> 
> ...



There is no severability clause and thus ALL of the bill is unconstitutional. The request for injunctive releif was denied "what you call a pass" because the ruling of unconstitutionality is by default an automatic injunctive releif. Obama must file for a stay from a higher court if he wishes to continue to implement it. However, every day that he implements Obamacare without a stay, no matter what any future court rules, he is in violation of his oath of office! The President has no choice but to obide by the ruling of the judiciary and if he fails to do so he is in contempt which is an impeachable offence.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



I love it when liberals attempt to correct a wrong with "what they preceive to be" another wrong. They do this in an attempt of moral equivilency to justify their own wrongs and distract from the current wrong being commited. This is absolutly without a doubt what you are trying to do! You cannot justify the wrongs of the left by critisizing the "preceived" wrongs of the right. End of story. Thus your arguement is void and null.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

goldcatt said:


> Why isn't this crap in conspiracy theories? Or at least the Romper Room.
> 
> Magic double super secret phantom default injunctions. Where do they come up with this shit?



Because its not a conspiracy theory. If you had read the op I give you the link to the descision and the page to find where the judge considers his ruling of unconstitutionality as a default injunction. Your failure to read it before making your unsourced and unresearched comment shows that no matter what the truth is you will fail to adheir to it so as long as it doesent fit your idealology.

*P 75. Vinson opinion * (5) InjunctionThe last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.Injunctive relief is an extraordinary [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and drastic remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is thefederal government, for *there is a long-standing presumption that officials of theExecutive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court*. *As a result, thedeclaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. *See Comm. onJudiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (*declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officersare defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction* . . .*since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declaredby the court*) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.Thus, *the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief isnot necessary.*


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> 
> *1.* Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!
> 
> ...



How did he figure the mandate is unseverable when in the same ruling he ruled in favor of the defendants on the Medicaid changes, why aren't they severable from the mandate?


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> ...



Because unlike most bills passed by congress this has no severability clause. His ruling on that part has plenty of judicial precedent. Democrats put no serverability clause in it because the law is usless without the individual mandate, an arguement that the defence made before the judge as he nots in the ruling. Thus the entire bill is unconstitutional! Woo Hoo!


----------



## rdean (Feb 2, 2011)

Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?

Absolutely.  The last thing we want is to insure Americans.

The number one cause of bankruptcy are Medical Bills and Republicans will fight to the last man to keep it that way.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?
> 
> Absolutely.  The last thing we want is to insure Americans.
> 
> The number one cause of bankruptcy are Medical Bills and Republicans will fight to the last man to keep it that way.



It has absolutly nothing to do with insuring Americans. It has everything to do with the rights and liberties of all Americans. The federal government has no such power to force people to buy healthcare and for good reason. Your "either or fallacy" is false on its face and misleading.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> 
> *1.* Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!
> 
> ...



to hold someone in contempt, they have to have violated a court order.

what court order did the president violate, nutbar?


----------



## rdean (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?
> ...



Actually, you are wrong.  The federal court used the "commerce clause" to overreach and attempt to strike down this insurance plan.  

One of the main reasons behind the plan was to reduce costs to American Taxpayers.

Right now, the US spends more than 40 billion a year on emergency room care alone.  This cost is paid for by taxpayers and from raising property taxes.  This is why some hospitals are going out of business.  They can't get local money and that leaves more and more poor without any health care at all.  This is a disaster in the making.

But spending that 40 billion plus on goods and services (in this case, medicine and health care), then it becomes commerce.  That makes it legal, exactly the same as "taxes".

I don't understand why you right wingers don't like middle America.  Aren't you part of middle America?  Why vote against your own self interests?  I dunno, seems kinda dumb.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

If you want to impeach Obama here is the best slam dunk case for it!
*threads merged.*
The Obama Administration said that they are going to continue to implement Obamacare despite the Courts ruling. This is in contempt of the recent judgement of unconstitutionality by Judge Vinson. The judge has allready deemed the law unconstitutional and thus there was no need for injunctive releif because the ruling of unconstitutionality is in itself the equivillant of an injunction as he states below. The States that filed this claim should file another claim to hold Obama in contempt and once it has been deemed that he is willfully in contempt of the federal court ruling the Congress should move for impeachment!  In fact, no matter what the outcome of any other court descision, and without a stay from a higher court "which he does not have", he is still in willful disobediance of a federal court ruling! Thus he is undoubtably and undesputably in violation of his oath of office! He is willingly and knowingly violating the constitution as determined by the judiciary who has the final word. Obama is implementing a law that currently does not exist! 

Here is the portion of the ruling telling us why Obamacare is effectivly KIA despite the denial of injunctive releif. He cannot grant an injunction on a law that the federal government has no right to implement in the first place!

Vinson opinion *Page 75.*

(5) InjunctionThe last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs&#8217; request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.Injunctive relief is an &#8220;extraordinary&#8221; [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and &#8220;drastic&#8221; remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is thefederal government, for there is a long-standing presumption &#8220;that officials of theExecutive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. *As a result, thedeclaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.&#8221; *See Comm. onJudiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (&#8220;declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officersare defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declaredby the court&#8221 (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief isnot necessary.

For those of you who dont speak legalese here is the "Great One" who knows that Constitution far better than Obama ever will. Check out this video at 4:15 


Mark Levin's reaction to the ruling


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



I'm not sure how you got "businesses and individuals" out of my explicit reference to _states_. ACA, by and large, is being implemented at the state level by state personnel. More than half of the states taking part in this lawsuit are currently running their own ACA-authorized PCIPs with federal money--will those be shut down by the end of the month? Every one of those states except Alaska has applied for and accepted federal grants to plan the structures of their exchanges; some are currently gearing up to apply for the second round of exchange grants, the establishment grants. Will that money be returned to the federal government and that process halted? These states are revamping their Medicaid eligibility and enrollment in response to the ACA; some are currently in the process of applying for Early Innovator grants to roll out IT innovations to enable that. Will that process be halted in all of these states? Most of these states have been funded to enhance their state premium oversight process. I've seen rumblings that Florida might try and return the rest of its grant for that purpose--will the rest follow suit? Word is that the Community Transformation Grant application process is about to begin--will these states refrain from applying? Will they put a stop to any of the activities the Prevention Fund is currently enabling in their states? And so on.

The states are implementing. It'll be fascinating to see which ones reverse course now. I expect that the ones that choose not to will have your condemnation.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 2, 2011)

Well I am pretty sure they are going to try and impeach him for something.

It's not like any of them feckless charlatans will be able to beat him in a general election.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Yea I get it. So you say that the federal government has absolutly no means of taxing and regulating the enforcement of this law and that it all done by the States only. FALSE.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 2, 2011)

What court order?  Has an injunction been issued?  Because if not, then he's under no court order to do anything.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

rdean said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



The definition of the word "regulate" in the 18th century dictionaries means "to make regular". Plus you cannot regulate commerce by FORCING THE INDIVIDUAL TO BUY that commerce. Just because it crosses a state line does not give congress the authority to make us pay for a service that pays for another service that depends on products that cross state lines. 

Sorry. You cant make an extreamly flawed law that hospitals must take the uninsured and when your "well intentioned" law makes healthcare more unafordable than it was before, then you try to result to unconstitutional measures to fix your flawed law. And then when liberty triumphs you give us a false either or fallacy. In essence you claim that "either we must give congress more power than it legally has or take away the healthcare of others". Thats absolutly false reasoning!


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> ...



He refuses to stop implementing the bill.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 2, 2011)

Levin is a fucking moron

How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



No.  PATRIOTS wrote it.  Conservatives still revere it.  It is you liberals who try consistently to undermine it and evade it.

The truth is that you are utterly unable to support the nonsense you spew.

Out of general curiosity, your posts today have been largely gibberish.  Are you high, drunk, taking medication for brain damage or what?


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

gekaap said:


> What court order?  Has an injunction been issued?  Because if not, then he's under no court order to do anything.



You didnt read the OP did you? A RULING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS BY DEFAULT AN INJUNCTION! This portion of the court ruling is sourced, linked, highlighted, typed in red, underlined, and in bold in the OP of this thread. HOW COULD YOU MISS IT? READ IT! I'm tired of explaining the same stuff over and over again. I hate it when people make comments on topics they dont know about in threads they refuse to read when all the subject has already been explained in the op.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 2, 2011)

It's not just a "court order" . A federal judge determined that the entire law is unconstitutional.  If the administration defies a federal judge it becomes a Constitutional crisis. If the mainstream media comes out on the side of the administration instead of the Constitution we can understand what Germans faced in the late 30's.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



no one has stayed enforcement of the law.

it hasn't been a bill since it was passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. do you need a link?


as of right now, two district courts (the lowest fed cts) have upheld it, two haven't. each of those decisions will go to their respective circuit courts of appeals for review. then they will go to the supreme court.

why would anyone stop implementing it?

because you don't like it?


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Yea I get it. So you say that the federal government has absolutly no means of taxing and regulating the enforcement of this law and that it all done by the States only. FALSE.



No, you don't get it.

But I'll ask my original question again anyway: Should those states also hold themselves in contempt for continuing to voluntarily implement the ACA?


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

whitehall said:


> It's not just a "court order" . A federal judge determined that the entire law is unconstitutional.  If the administration defies a federal judge it becomes a Constitutional crisis. If the mainstream media comes out on the side of the administration instead of the Constitution we can understand what Germans faced in the late 30's.



If it was Bush the left would be in the streets demanding his impeachment. But liberals get a pass. I'm sure that somewhere in the Constitution it says that "Liberals are exempt from the judiciary and the Constitution does not apply." They should file to have him held in contempt and impeach his ass! If anything proves that Obama could care less about the rule of law it's this. I may be sticking my foot in my mouth but can you think of any other time a President has defied a court order. Except for Obama defying the court order on gulf drilling, of course. I cant think of any.


----------



## rdean (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Isn't "forcing Americans" to buy government services the same thing.  You know, things like paying for the EPA and Schools and roads and the military and, well, the list is endless.

You still haven't answered the question, "Aren't you part of middle America?  Why vote against your own self interests?"  By everyone buying into health care, it costs less.  

You are mandated to buy car insurance.  What if you weren't?  You obviously couldn't buy it AFTER you've had an accident.  And if you don't have car insurance and you get hurt, everyone has to pay. And pay a lot.

Everyone paying into it helps everyone.  You can't convince me otherwise.  I'm just glad that it isn't about race.  People don't like it because they hate the black guy in the "WHITE House".  I'm sure that's not the case.


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2011)

If the Congress passed a bill declaring that henceforth the Armed Forces should be segregated by race, maybe we could expect the President to veto it.  But, maybe Congress overrides the veto.  Thus the bill becomes law.  

Naturally, that law gets challenged in Court.  Two District Courts say the law is perfectly valid in whole and in part.  But one says it is invalid in SOME respects and the Other determines that for a variety of reasons, the entire Act is a violation of the Constitution and he declares it Unconstitutional.

Under those circumstances, would the President be obligated to enforce the "law?"  Or, would he be bound to adhere to a judicial determination that the law violates the Constitution and thus be obligated to deny the law any enforcement?

My view is obvious.  I say that when a law has been declared to be unconstitutional, it MAY NOT be enforced until that determination is STAYED by a higher court or until it gets overturned by a higher court.  Judge Vinson did not order a "stay" of his own determination since he found that a separate "order" to that effect was simply unnecessary.  I say Judge Vinson was correct.

There is no "stay" on his declaratory ruling.  Thus, until that situation changes, it is improper for the President to take ANY action whatsoever in furtherance of that presently null and void law.


----------



## Sallow (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > It's not just a "court order" . A federal judge determined that the entire law is unconstitutional.  If the administration defies a federal judge it becomes a Constitutional crisis. If the mainstream media comes out on the side of the administration instead of the Constitution we can understand what Germans faced in the late 30's.
> ...



What the heck are you babbling on about. President George W. Bush violated the Constitution on multiple occassions, broke the law and lied to congress. The only time I remember anyone "on the streets" was to protest the illegal invasion of Iraq. To no avail. 250K people protesting in NYC and not a peep on the "Mainstream Media". So please.

Stop babbling about topics you know nothing about.

Like the United States Constitution.

That goes for your mentor too..Mark Levin.


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea I get it. So you say that the federal government has absolutly no means of taxing and regulating the enforcement of this law and that it all done by the States only. FALSE.
> ...



That's a pretty meaningless question.  The determination by Judge Vinson voids that law (at least until his ruling gets stayed or over-ruled).  under those circumstances, the proper obligation of the Federal Government with regard to that "law" is to stand by and not move forward on it.  

States have different powers.  If they act pursuant to their own laws, rules and regulations (and their own Constitutions), they might very well be free to "voluntarily" implement the ACA's provisions.  

But, out of an abundance of caution, unless they HAVE passed their own laws along those same lines, it would be rather silly of them to move to voluntarily implement a Federal law that may very well never again BE a law.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Which court order did Bush violate? I cant think of any nor can I find any. I could be wrong but I cant think of any President defying a court order. You rant is cute but it does not comply with anything I claimed earlyer in any of my posts. Any more knee jerck reactions from the peanut gallery? Oh, and are you a lawyer? Have you worked in and argued constitutional law? Do you have your own legal foundation? Have you served in any presidential administration? Mark Levin is and has all of these things.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota... 

and you can ignore that on one thread and create another troll thread, but there still has never been a court that stayed enforcement of the law.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 2, 2011)

That ruling will  be contested. Probably overruled.


----------



## geauxtohell (Feb 2, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Levin is a fucking moron
> 
> How many stupid threads are you going to post on this lame topic?



We really needed another one.

I am not aware that Obama has instructed anyone to ignore the judicial branch's rulings.  By the logic of the OP, we could impeach any President who passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.

What a maroon.


----------



## JFK_USA (Feb 2, 2011)

Umm.... because the judge issued a stay on the order. You're an idiot though Congrats.


----------



## grunt11b (Feb 2, 2011)

Megatron said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> ...



The county? No, the country..yes, she could not possibly do worse then this Kenyan communist that is in there now.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> That ruling will  be contested. Probably overruled.



Lets just suppose for a moment your right. Is Obama still in violation of a court order and his oath of office? Absolutly!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 2, 2011)

LOL. Not at all. But dream on, Pubic. President Obama will almost certainly serve two terms, and you fellows are doing all that you can to make that a certainty.


----------



## grunt11b (Feb 2, 2011)

Megatron said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Megatron said:
> ...



You're worthless, your ideology is worthless, every one of you are worthless, all that you people have ever caused this nation was a great economy and our sovereignty, and you still just don't get it. I forgive you though, your ignorance comes from colleges where progressive professors are left to run amok, instead of logical fact base colleges where history and facts prove other wise. It's not your fault you're a dumbass, it's just the situation you are in ...........Dumbass.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

JFK_USA said:


> Umm.... because the judge issued a stay on the order. You're an idiot though Congrats.



No he didnt! Whats your source?


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Levin is a fucking moron
> ...



No. You can impeach any president who defies a court ruling and continues a law after it has been deemed unconstitutional. Your inability to read makes you the moron in this case. Go back to the op and read it. Slowly though. I dont want you to hurt yourself.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Levin is a fucking moron
> ...



he is a maroon... 

a lower court decision is meaningless ... 

he is also ignoring the courts that have upheld it.

it has to be painful to be that delusional.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT STRUCK DOWN THIS LAW. 

NO COURT HAS STAYED ITS ENFORCEMENT PENDING APPEAL.

Are you just trolling? Or do you actually believe the stuff you spew?


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



read the descision in the op!!!!!!!! A ruling of unconstitutionality is a default injunction! Why cant people read??????!!!!! Why do I keep giving these people information and they ignore it and make fools of themselves???? WHY?  

*FROM THE JUDGE HIMSELF:* *p 75.* Vinson opinion (5) InjunctionThe last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs&#8217; request for injunctive reliefenjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.Injunctive relief is an &#8220;extraordinary&#8221; [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and &#8220;drastic&#8221; remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is thefederal government, for there is a long-standing presumption &#8220;that officials of theExecutive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. *As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.&#8221; *See Comm. onJudiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (&#8220;declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officersare defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declaredby the court&#8221 (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief isnot necessary.


----------



## Greenbeard (Feb 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> States have different powers.  If they act pursuant to their own laws, rules and regulations (and their own Constitutions), they might very well be free to "voluntarily" implement the ACA's provisions.



A state-administered PCIP is authorized by federal legislation and funded with federal money. A state Medicaid expansion requires federal authorization (again, because the FMAP comes from the feds). Exchange planning conducted by state employees whose FTEs are covered by federal money authorized in the ACA are not magically distinct from the ACA. The same is true of revisions to the state rate review process. If they choose to return (and perhaps refund) the money and disband the federally funded risk pools, then they'll indeed be disentangled from the law and can pursue or not pursue the policies in the ACA without regard for the legislation's actual legal status. 

What I'm wondering here is: until they do that, are we going to pout about them, too?


----------



## Yurt (Feb 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota...
> 
> and you can ignore that on one thread and create another troll thread, but there still has never been a court that stayed enforcement of the law.



my understanding is that a court order can stay enforcement of a law, i've seen it done numerous times, for example death penalty cases, the gay marriage laws....


----------



## Yurt (Feb 2, 2011)

obama is not in contempt of anything.  there is a SPLIT in the courts, nothing will change with the law unless scotus makes a decision or congress changes the law


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Legally THAT DOES NOT MATTER! It only takes one federal judge. Thats it! And if lower court descisions are meaningless then there would be no need for their existance.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> read the descision in the op!!!!!!!! A ruling of unconstitutionality is a default injunction! Why cant people read??????!!!!!



no. a preliminary finding of unconstitutionality by a district court is not a 'default injiunction'. the string cite you rely on contains only one case that even implies that is a DC Circuit case. That case has no binding authority on any other district. It is also inapplicable to the instant matter as it doesn't deal with constitutional construction. it deals with whether harriet miers had to turn over papers. 

thanks for playing.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



see, now i'm done playing with you because yuo don't know what you're talking about. so i assume you're just trolling and i can't be bothered, nutbar.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

Yurt said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota...
> ...



absolutely. and no such order was issued here. isn't that what i said in the post you replied to?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 2, 2011)

grunt11b said:


> , instead of logical fact base colleges where history and facts prove other wise. ...........Dumbass.



I suppose you want ID taught as science, too?


----------



## geauxtohell (Feb 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Levin is a fucking moron
> ...



We have a winner here!



> Hi, you have received -3 reputation points from Publius1787.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > read the descision in the op!!!!!!!! A ruling of unconstitutionality is a default injunction! Why cant people read??????!!!!!
> ...



My God it must be wonderful to be so ignorant. The link IS THE JUDGES OPINION! This is undesputable, irrefuntable, and undeniable. Once a federal judge has deemed a bill unconstitutional the executive must cease implementation of that law! A LOWER COURT IS NOT PRELEMINARY! IT IS FINAL UNTIL AFTER THE RULING OF THE NEXT APPEALS COURT UNLESS A STAY IS GRANTED WHICH IN THIS CASE HAS NOT HAPPENED! It only takes one judge to do this! If a million ruled it constitutional and one ruled it unconstitution then the president must abide by the ruling of unconstitutionality and appeal it to a higher court. AND A RULING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS AN INJUCTION AS THE JUDGE HIMSELF STATES IN HIS RULING! Why do english speaking people have so much trouble reading english?


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



lol.. has this idiot called anyone 'sis' yet?

and i think my +1051 made up for his -3. 

and the loon got negged for trolling.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I love it how people get so butt hurt over reps. How about you reply to my post? http://www.usmessageboard.com/3281340-post64.html


----------



## The Hatter (Feb 2, 2011)

Invoking common sense, I'm going to have to vote no on this question.


----------



## jillian (Feb 2, 2011)

The Hatter said:


> Invoking common sense, I'm going to have to vote no on this question.



someone needs to tell him that just because a state brings a legal challenge to a law doesn't mean the state 'overturns' it. states don't have authority to overturn federal law.


----------



## geauxtohell (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Whining?  You mean mean laughing.

I find your posts too stupid to reply too.  Other people, who actually know the law, have responded to your silly points.


----------



## The Hatter (Feb 2, 2011)

goldcatt said:


> Why isn't this crap in conspiracy theories? Or at least the Romper Room.
> 
> Magic double super secret phantom default injunctions. Where do they come up with this shit?


----------



## xotoxi (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> *3.* The President refuses to immediatly stop implementing Obamacare and thus, is in violation of his oath of office and in contempt of a federal court ruling.



Can't he just pardon himself?


----------



## Yurt (Feb 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



my bad, i thought the first sentence stood alone, by law, you meant the health care law....


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 2, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



You find my posts stupid to reply to yet you reply to them and when I ask for a reply to my responce you tell me that you find my posts stupid and do not wish to reply to them. 

Oh, and other people who know the law? Like whom? I think the judges opinion is as clear as day itself.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



Why do people insist on making fools of themselves in public forums. If this was a place where people knew everybody's real names etc, I be there would be a lot more circumspect debating going on.

You are an idiot.

You do realise that judges from all over the place make these decisions every day, right? And that if what you said WAS true (in case you haven't figured it out yet, we've been trying to tell you it's not) then the judicial system would be in gridlock because they would be over ruling each other left, right and centre. 

So there are two explanations. You are either a troll. Or you are stupid.Take your pick...


----------



## geauxtohell (Feb 2, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> You find my posts stupid to reply to yet you reply to them and when I ask for a reply to my responce you tell me that you find my posts stupid and do not wish to reply to them.
> 
> Oh, and other people who know the law? Like whom? I think the judges opinion is as clear as day itself.



I replied before I figured out that you were stupid.  

I'll let you figure out the posters on here who actually know what they are talking about.  

*hint* *hint*  They are the ones that are discussing technical details.

But hey, keep holding out for that impeachment.

Just don't hold your breath.


----------



## Liability (Feb 2, 2011)

jillian said:


> no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota...
> 
> and you can ignore that on one thread and create another troll thread, but there still has never been a court that stayed enforcement of the law.



Nonsense, Jilly.  Nonsense.  You need to rethink that "logic."

The Judge himself stated (quite clearly and with case law authority backing up his words) that there was no *need* for him to order a "stay" of any further enforcement of the law.  



> Page 75 of  78
> (5) Injunction
> The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs request for injunctive reliefen joining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.  Injunctive relief is an extraordinary [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and drastic remedy[Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, *for there is a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.* As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (*declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court*) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.*Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.*


 Health Care Ruling by Judge Vinson

So, Jilly, unless you care to try to refute the Judge's legal analysis (and good fucking luck; you'll need it), you _could_ just as easily admit that he has a valid point.  And you should.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota...
> ...



Having a valid point and it being applied to law are two different things...I don't see Jill mentioning the validity of the points he was making. you?


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > You find my posts stupid to reply to yet you reply to them and when I ask for a reply to my responce you tell me that you find my posts stupid and do not wish to reply to them.
> ...



Actually, I wish he would hold his breath.


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Liability's funny. He thinks it impresses people to call me 'jilly', like that somehow is going to make me take him seriously. 

and as you stated, we weren't discussing the merits (or lack thereof() of the judges' decision. we were educating the imbecile troll o/p on when someone can be held incontempt.

i think liability needs to learn to read with comprehension.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Oh please.  Jilly is capable of some sound arguments, but your defense of her in this matter is undertaken where she fails to even try to make a sound argument.  What she SAID, Dr. Grump, was *"no court order stays enforcement of the law idiota... "*

If you think that means something other than HER making the claim that Judge Vinson's order does not stay enforcement of the Obamacare law, then I suppose I'd need to hear how you come to that conclusion.

And she doesn't merely make that contention either.  She says, in effect, that one is an idiot (or an "*idiota*" whatever the fuck she might mean by that) for believing differently than what she is maintaining.  

I notice that Jilly (I call her Jilly by the way because it's shorter, and she has never objected, until today, to my knowledge) NOW claims that she "wasn't" discussing the MERITS.    But, of course, the truth is:  yes she was discussing the merits of that point.

The MERITS of the matter which was under discussion (i.e., whether or not the Judge's declaratory judgment works as a "stay") was *exactly* what she was dismissively discussing when she noted her contention and suggested that anybody who was arguing to the contrary was an idiot.

IF Jilly cares to try being a bit more honest, there *is* room to debate whether Judge Vinson's analysis on THAT point is legally correct or not.   But her position is neither self-evidently true nor is it true that folks who disagree with her views are "idiots" or "*idiota*."

It's actually pretty straightforward.  *Either* Judge Vinson's discussion of the effect of his declaratory judgment serving as a "stay" is right *or* Judge Vinson is somehow mistaken on that point.  

I'm not as "civil" as Jilly, but I'd suggest that one is not an "idiota" for accepting Judge Vinson's legal analysis.   One need not be an idiot for disagreeing with him, either.  But as long as there's room to debate that point, it is plainly silly of Jilly to "argue" her position the way she did.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> 
> *1.* Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!
> 
> ...



You posted Mark Levin.  This is proof positive that you're an idiot. 

You cannot recover from this.  Levin-idiocy is fo-eva.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

And one more point stemming from the contention that Judge Vinson's declaratory judgment serves as a stay:

Assuming for the moment that Judge Vinson is correct, and the declaratory judgment voiding the Obamacare law in its entirety does serve as a "stay," then there is nothing either "trollish" nor necessarily irrational about discussing what happens if that stay is ignored by the Obama Administration.  One enforcement method for a violation of a "stay" IS a contempt proceeding.

Once again, there is plenty of room for debate.  Good points can be made (and in other arenas, some of them have already been made) on either side of that issue.  But, since there IS valid room for debate, the claim that the 'trolls" are "ignorant" and need "educating" is really just a supercilious way of dismissing their entire argument without bothering to defend your own side of the debate.  To couch your "argument" in that form is not even remotely a valid form of argument.  That's for sure.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> ...



Nope.  YOUR argument is lazy nonsense. 

In actuality, Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar.  He is a sound legal analyst.  He is not remotely an "idiot."  In fact, he is probably a genius in a literal sense.

What YOU are saying Cuyo (in a very juvenile manner) is that you disagree with Mark Levin.  Whoopity doo.  You're allowed to disagree.  But the BASIS for your disagreement is not so much as even stated by you.   Mark Levin (like Judge Vinson's decision) spells out the basis for HIS side of the argument.  You just engage in a very superficial fallacy.  Sadly, this tends to paint you as looking like the idiot.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



It's a little bit like me posting Michael Moore.  The difference is, _your_ side expects its radical lunatics to be taken seriously.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Wrong again multiple times in one short post.  You set land speed records.

It is nothing like Michael Moore.  Moore is a pontificating gasbag with no expertise other than, perhaps, the making of documentaries in the realm of one-sided propaganda.  Mark Levin, by contrast, has expertise in the areas he discusses, namely the law and government, but primarily in law.  

I would agree that the disgusting blob also known as Michael Moore is a lunatic.  But there is zero valid basis for your suggestion that Mark Levin is one, too.  In fact, he's not.  You may not care for the things he says nor for his manner of saying them, but that's a very different issue.  He happens to be able to support his arguments quite ably and honestly.  Nothing "lunatic" about him.

In short, you are merely repeating your original baseless and unsupported fallacious argument.  We get it.  You don't like Levin and he gets under your skin.  

You may not realize it, but it is pretty apparent that your REAL problem with Levin is that *you* lack any ability whatsoever to logically refute his positions and contentions.   

Funny stuff.  Thanks for the laughs.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 3, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> 
> *1.* Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!
> 
> ...



yes they should.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



No.

He's a me-too bandwagon radical.  The fact that he has a state-system law degree and that he agrees with you ideologically doesn't make him a genius.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.  You've been listening to an idiot.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 3, 2011)

How about those 26 states all file for state wide exemptions?


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2011)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> ...



on what basis?

levin's a wacko


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Feb 3, 2011)

jillian said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



A wacko?   hahahahaha this coming from a self proclaimed attorney that runs away when asked to prove her claims. 

You couldn't carry Levin's briefcase.


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I'm not a self-proclaimed anything. I earned my title.

how 'bout you? logic sure as hell isn't your strong suit.

as for levin... he's a wacko... and anyone who's really an attorney knows that and he should be ashamed of himself.

and i don't debate losers. 

real simple. if someone has a point to make, i stay around.

if they're a pathetic troll like the o/p, i stay as long as it takes to figure out they're not worth talking to.

same reason i'd never debate *you*.  nothing to be gained by trying to teach pigs to talk.

I have a particular aversion to wasting my time on people who are both ignorant and nasty. 


you know... like you.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Wrong again.  I have instead been listening to Mark Levin who --despite your desperate urge to repeat your baseless and unsupported blather -- is nothing even remotely akin to an idiot.  He is, instead, as I correctly noted, more likely a genius.  He, unlike you, happens to be a genuine expert.

You have no substance to support any part of your position; thus you are reduced to mindlessly repeating your invalid empty claim.  And repeating them as you do still doesn't make them any less untrue nor does it put your lack of logical ability on any sounder footing.  

In short, you have failed again.  And you will always fail at least that badly when you try to foist of your unsupported empty opinions as facts.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yes, "Mindlessly repeating [my] invalid empty claim."  

Nothing like what you're doing.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Jilly has demonstrated (in the past) an ability to discuss legal matters in an intelligent fashion.  I don't doubt that she is an attorney.  In her field, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that she's a talented attorney.

But when it comes to her political ramblings intersecting with the law -- such as Mark Levin has been discussing -- she permits her political bias to cloud her thinking.  Then, she resorts to the kind of juvenile behavior she is quick to condemn in others.  It's pretty pathetic.

The fact is, Mark Levin is a noted legal scholar.  He heads a conservative legal foundation which has been active in taking on important (and thorny) legal issues of our time.  One can agree or disagree with some of his legal opinions, which is very common in legal debate.  But to dismiss his position in the facially fallacious manner of pretending that he, himself, is worthy only of invective and dismissal is quite obviously an invalid manner of discussing his contentions. 

Jilly, in THIS matter, has proved herself to be both petty and unpersuasive

And now that I have said that, she is very likely to come back "swinging" again with more _ad hominem_ blather directed at me and/or Mark Levin and/or anybody else who sees what she's been doing.  Ho hum.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



You're right.  It's not.

YOU made an empty claim.   YOU keep repeating it.  YOU offer nothing (as in not a single thing) to support your claims.  

By stark contrast, all I have done is note that you are making empty claims.  I have also noted that (unlike you and contrary to your claim) Mark Levin is not just an attorney, but Constitutional scholar.   Unlike you (but very much like Judge Vinson), Mark Levin appreciates the need to support his contentions -- and HE did so.  You have YET to even try.

So, yes.   Your claims ARE indeed empty and baseless.  Your purported "argument" is invalid since it premised on a fallacy.  And by virtue of the fact that I have based my rejection of your position on such grounds, unlike you, I have supported my claims.  

It's ok to admit what you have done to this point, Cuyo.  You can rectify it.  It's not too late.  Just try SUPPORTING your claims by reference to facts and with regard to some kind of logical syllogism.    But, based on what I have seen of your posting history, I suspect you will, instead, deflect, change the subject or evade doing any such thing as might support your claims.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You're almost there.  Tell me just a _little_ more, and you'll get me to concede that Mark fuckin' Levin is some kind of genius.

He's a nutter.  I've listened to him, and I can't see how anyone can listen to that kind of dreck for more than 10 seconds.

You're entitled to your opinion - But it is, in this case, wrong.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



As I said.  You have nothing.  

Take away your pitiable  reliance on the fallacy you are attempting to use and what's left is starkly revealed:

  You are *completely* unable to even BEGIN to refute ANYTHING Mark Levin has said.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 3, 2011)

I just love it how the ignorant try to think they have the 'win' on the educated. It never fails to amaze how the uneducated right-wing whackos are always belittling the educated. Bit like short man's disease.

Liability - Levin is a bona fide whackjob...the fact you spruik him just adds weight to the argument...


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Feb 3, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You're full of shit and you know it.  You are a self proclaimed attorney for the simple fact that no one on this board has made that proclamation on your behalf. 

Truth be told you refuse to debate me simply because I would wipe the floor with your goofy ass.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Feb 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I respectively have to disagree with you because I doubt she's an attorney. Attorney's don't run away when asked to provide evidence of claims and she has done that on numerous occasions. If I had the time and/or the desire I could show examples, but anyone that follows this board already knows this to be true and she has acknowledged as much in her earlier response to me.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I know for a fact she is an attorney. She works in court every day of her working week.

In the 9 years I have been on this board I have not seen anybody come close to kicking her arse on points of law.

I have seen her have vigorous debates with informed, intelligent righties that have been interesting and informative.

Yourself, Liability and the OP starter do not fit into that category.

You know, trying to belittle somebody's bona fides because they:
1) know what they are talking about
2) disagree with your POV
3) have years of knowledge on the subject to back up their POV

does nothing to enhance your POV.

You do realise that the only people who agree with the likes of yourself and Liability and all others that question her education are just the peanut gallery? To those of us who agree with her POV and the political neutrals, you guys just reinforce the neocon, whackjob stereotype we have of you....

Shouting from the roof with a bunch of sheep as your audience doesn't mean you're right, it just means you are appealing to the lowest common denominator on your side of the argument. Hardly compelling...


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> I just love it how the ignorant try to think they have the 'win' on the educated. It never fails to amaze how the uneducated right-wing whackos are always belittling the educated. Bit like short man's disease.
> 
> Liability - Levin is a bona fide whackjob...the fact you spruik him just adds weight to the argument...



What evidence do you have that "Levin is a bona fide whackjob"?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Your credibility is worthless. She shied away from every challenge I've raised. An attorney indeed.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 3, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> You didnt read the OP did you? A RULING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS BY DEFAULT AN INJUNCTION! This portion of the court ruling is sourced, linked, highlighted, typed in red, underlined, and in bold in the OP of this thread. HOW COULD YOU MISS IT? READ IT! I'm tired of explaining the same stuff over and over again. I hate it when people make comments on topics they dont know about in threads they refuse to read when all the subject has already been explained in the op.



I read the OP.  What YOU fail to understand is that the court does not issue an injunction in such a case is not because the ruling itself has injunctive authority and power.  Think of this as a professional courtesy.  The judiciary is presuming the integrity of the executive branch to do the right thing without the need for issuing an injunction.  Of course, this does not always happen, and last November when DADT was ruled unconstutitional the court issued an injunction (though they injunction was put on hold by the appellate court when the Justice Dept. appealed the case).  Therefore, it did not issue one.  However, in order to maintain a case that there has been violation of a court order, an actual injunction would have to be issued.

This reminds me of a case I read about 6 years ago, maybe longer.  Basically, something along the lines of a defendant's failed suppression motion in district court was overturned in circuit court, and the defendant appealed the after conviction.  Somewhere along the way he was supposed to be released from prison because his conviction was supposed to be overturned, but the lower court refused to cooperate.  Going back to the appellate court, he petitioned for mandamus, and while being granted the appellate court refrained from issuing the writ, noting that it presumed the lower court would have the integrity to honor the higher court's ruling.  The higher court promised to issue the writ if the lower court continued to refuse compliance, but only if it became necessary.

So, what we have here is the judiciary presuming that the executive branch will do the right thing, and act in accordance with the court's ruling.  However, this professional courtesy being violated does not establish a case for the non-compliance with a court order.  If the President makes the unfortunate and highly unprofessional decision to ignore it, then the court will have to take the step of actually issuing the injunction.

Of course, the President also has the option of appealing the ruling, and requesting a temporary relief from any injunctive prevention of applying the law while the case is on appeal.


----------



## jillian (Feb 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Your credibility is worthless. She shied away from every challenge I've raised. An attorney indeed.



no one's shied away from anything.

i don't 'debate' stupidity. 

you can make yourself feel better by ignoring that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Feb 3, 2011)

jillian said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Your credibility is worthless. She shied away from every challenge I've raised. An attorney indeed.
> ...



What you don't do is provide evidence when challenged. Now you can spin it anyway you want counselor, but the facts are the facts.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Feb 3, 2011)

jillian said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



I didn't watch the vid of levin as when I see his face i get the strange urge to punch things.  

I think that they should sue the admin if they (administration) don't halt anything related to that law immediately until the S.C. gets to decide on the case.  Once part of a law is deemed unconstitutional the entire law is supposed to end.

If they win they win if they lose they lose. Eitehr way they should stick to their convictions on it and use the power of the constitution, through this Judge's decision, to stop a law they don't like.

EDIT:  And no I dont want to impeach obama through this......i'd rather vote him out in 2012.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 3, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I just love it how the ignorant try to think they have the 'win' on the educated. It never fails to amaze how the uneducated right-wing whackos are always belittling the educated. Bit like short man's disease.
> ...



Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxllLkYwrAI&feature=related[/ame]

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
This guy isn't interested in debate. He is only interested in the sound of his own voice and shouting other people down.

Yeah, Levin is a great American and a great example of trying to get things right... More like a great example of somebody who only cares about ratings and uses his bullypulpit to discern right-wing talking point....

A whackjob he is, a whackjob he remains.....


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2011)

Liability said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Dood... He's an idiot.  Perhaps not in the sense of low IQ's, bad reasoning skills, etc, but I've listened to his program and it's nothing more than extremely partisan, reactionary shock-jockery.  There's nothing of substance to be seen.  Everything the Democrats do is wrong.  The black POTUS is Satan.  Progressivism is the worst evil ever seen by mankind.  Derkha Derkha mull sherpa herp-a-derp CONSTITUTION!  He sounds like "The T," who I've suspected actually_ is _Mark Levin.  There's no actual connections made, it's just a bunch of shouting.

Like I said, an idiot.  No I can't "Prove" it in black and white, so maybe it's just my opinion, and you're welcome to your own.  But if your opinion is that he's anything but a loon (either genuine or manufactured),  then your opinion is wrong.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Wow! Just wow! It doesent matter if a million judges rule this law as constitutional. It only takes one federal judge to rule a law unconstituional. THATS IT! This is fact. It is beyond debate. Ask any lawyer or judge in the United States.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 3, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > You didnt read the OP did you? A RULING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS BY DEFAULT AN INJUNCTION! This portion of the court ruling is sourced, linked, highlighted, typed in red, underlined, and in bold in the OP of this thread. HOW COULD YOU MISS IT? READ IT! I'm tired of explaining the same stuff over and over again. I hate it when people make comments on topics they dont know about in threads they refuse to read when all the subject has already been explained in the op.
> ...



Your out of your mind! THERE IS NO LAW TO DELIVER AND INJUCTION FOR. This ruling is final until a stay is granted or after an appeal! To date no stay has been granted. Every day Obama fails to stop implementing Obamacare is the equivilant of braking his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. For three days now he has defied this court order. You do not get to defy a court ruling without a stay!


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 3, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> ...



The day you work for presidential administration, practice constitutional law, own your own legal foundation, and pass the bar exam as levin has, is the day you can claim that Mark Levin, A LAWYER, is the day you can claim that Levin has no credebility. 
Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 3, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



He's an idiot.  If you listen to him and think he's brilliant... Well sir, that makes you an idiot as well.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 3, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



No. All he has done is state in his _opinion _it is unconstitutional. He has not changed the law; the law is still valid until it is either repealed or set in stone by the USSC. End of story.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 3, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Your out of your mind! THERE IS NO LAW TO DELIVER AND INJUCTION FOR. This ruling is final until a stay is granted or after an appeal! To date no stay has been granted. Every day Obama fails to stop implementing Obamacare is the equivilant of braking his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. For three days now he has defied this court order. You do not get to defy a court ruling without a stay!



I am neither out of my mind, nor is there any court order.  Why are Republicans always looking to impeach Presidents, so much so they strain reason into absurdity?  Why not confront him in the political arena, fight him on his merits or lack thereof.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> No. All he has done is state in his _opinion _it is unconstitutional. He has not changed the law; the law is still valid until it is either repealed or set in stone by the USSC. End of story.



Actually, this is not true.  I'm afraid you don't understand how the procedural factors come into play.

When a person sues the government claiming that a given law is unconstitutional, they are the ones with the primary burden of proof.  When a court rules against that person, they are in essence saying that the person bring suit has not fulfilled their burden.  Another court can hear a similar case, and subsequently decide that the plaintiff has fulfilled their burden and then decide the law is unconstitutional.  The fact that another court of equal level held differently does not negate the ruling of unconstitutionality.

The thing is that the ruling itself does not have any power to compel action.  An injunction preventing the government from enforcing the law has to follow in order to compel action.  The question does not have to be taken to the Supreme Court.  But usually, the government will appeal such a ruling, and that appellate process might end up going to the Supreme Court (or it might not).


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 3, 2011)

gekaap said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > No. All he has done is state in his _opinion _it is unconstitutional. He has not changed the law; the law is still valid until it is either repealed or set in stone by the USSC. End of story.
> ...



Thanks...I guess what I was trying to convey to our friend was that just because this particular judge made his ruling doesn't mean that is the end of it and his ruling is now law...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 3, 2011)

They should just pass the bill the GOP is putting up to let states opt out of the mandate.  Then the constitutional question is settled, plus, the bonus is,

the individual states would have to fuck over their in-state insurance companies by taking away the big pile of business they get from the mandate, while still leaving them obligated to cover anyone and everyone with pre-existing conditions!


----------



## gekaap (Feb 3, 2011)

I don't see how an opt out will satisfy any constitutional question.  If the health care bill is unconstitutional as an over reach of the government's powers, including a state level opt out feature won't do anything to satisfy that alleged over step.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Levin happens to be correct for the same reason that the Judge's ruling doesn't require (or logically even call for) the issuance of any "stay."  A federal Judge has just voided the Obamacare law.  A law determined to be unConstitutional is no law at all.  It is legally a nullity.  It is void _ab initio_.

Now it IS also true that the Obama Administration is not obligated to "take this lying down."  They can, by Golly, APPEAL!  But until and unless they do appeal and get a higher court to stay the effectiveness of the lower Court's ruling, as of this moment there is no longer any Obamacare law.  

I believe the Administration will appeal.  I have no idea if a higher Court will then "stay" the effectiveness of the Judge's ruling which declares the Obamacare law a legal nullity.  But, let's say that they DO stay the effectiveness of the Judge's Declaratory Judgment.  At that moment, it would become lawful (once again) to take Executive and Administrative actions to put the law slowly into effect.  

But, in the end, the higher court might well affirm Judge Vinson's ruling.  At that point, the law becomes (again) just a nullity.   This sets the stage for SCOTUS action.  They could issue another stay of the Circuit Court's ruling.  

Alternatively, the Circuit Court COULD, in theory, reject the legal analysis offered by Judge Vinson and REVERSE.  Fair enough.  But that too would likely set the stage for the SCOTUS to provide the definitive ruling.

Who wants to bet that ultimately, once the SCOTUS decides this thing, the Obamacare "law" is going to get voided?

I am predicting that the final judicial word on the Obamacare law will affirm the determination just made by Judge Vinson on pretty much exactly the basis upon which he rendered his decision.


----------



## Liability (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> I just love it how the ignorant try to think they have the 'win' on the educated. It never fails to amaze how the uneducated right-wing whackos are always belittling the educated. Bit like short man's disease.
> 
> Liability - Levin is a bona fide whackjob...the fact you spruik him just adds weight to the argument...



No.  He's actually not.  Thae fact that all you andd your ilk are capable of doing is mindlessly repeating that unsupported (and unsupportable) bogus claim is evidence enough that he's on the right side since YOU disagree with him.

You can stand on your head and fart nickels out your ass for show, but you are clearly not able to refute anything Levin has said on this topic.  I doubt you can do it relative to anything he says.

You guys are the _bona fide_ whacks.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 3, 2011)

Dr Grump said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



WOW! I usually refrain from calling people direct names but you are a moron. EVERY JUDGEMENT IN EVERY FEDERAL COURT TO INCLUDE THE SUPREME COURT IS CALLED AN OPINION! Are you telling me that if the Supreme Court Delivers an Opinion of "unconstitutional" on a particular matter the President of the United States does not need to abide by it because its called an opinion? Thats crazy talk! http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html . ALL RULINGS ARE OPINIONS!!!!


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 3, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Nothing like an unfounded, unreferenced, and unsourced, opinion like yours to kick up a debate. I would ask on what grounds do you make this assumption but then again your only going to answer back with more name calling.


----------



## Publius1787 (Feb 4, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Publius1787 said:
> ...



What? No response?


----------



## BrianH (Feb 5, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> So Obmam did it all?
> None of the congresspersons from those 26 states voted for it?
> Any of them re-elected last nov?



I personally believe they were either bought out or black-mailed.  It was too coincidental that they didn't have enough votes a week before the vote and then all-of-a-suddent had enough to pass.... very suspicious IMO.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 5, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




They are not not unraveling the ability of the government to collect taxes, they are simply asking that the government not tax as much as the left wants to tax.  It's a typical routine of both parties.  The democratic party favors more taxes, the republican party favors less.  As far as unraveling the constitution, it seems the left strives more to abolish and regulate constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment....  As far as conquering military, let's not forget that Truman(democrat) got us involved in Vietnam and South Korea immediately after WWII, JFK (democrat) got us more involved in Vietnam, Johnson (Democrat) took us to war in Vietnam,  Clinton (democrat) took us to war in the Balkans in 1993.  This notion that conservative republican presidents are the only one's who get us involved in war is ridiculous.


----------



## Martin35 (Feb 5, 2011)

A single judge gave a opinion ruling, he rulings are not equivalent to a ruling required to nullify a Congressional statute or Presidential implementation regardless of public sentiment.
Our system of laws are cumbersome in this regard not at all simplistic.
From the day this law was proposed it was known it would eventually see a Supreme court ruling by all the courts members.
Socialism is not a easy thing to sell to a people with aspirations of personal achievement, some of those dreams are unlimited,,, laws of this type are only the beginning of social restrictions for accumulating wealth,,, legally.


----------



## goldcatt (Feb 5, 2011)

I can't believe this bullshit thread is still active.

The OP is an idiot. First of all, no State has "found" anything let alone 26, it's a Federal statute and a Federal question. The states file, they don't decide. Basic, bare bones jurisdictional issue there not to mention preschool level counting, and the OP blows it. 

There have been 4, count 'em, 4 rulings in Federal District court on the health care law. Two found the law constitutional. The VA North judge found the mandate portion unconstitutional, properly partitioned it and issued no injunction since it doesn't even go into effect for 3 years and the Feds had already signaled their intent to appeal. This is the correct way to handle it, BTW, by law and precedent. The FL judge found the mandate portion unconstitutional and again, specifically declined to issue an order for an injunction. 

Only orders are binding and actionable. This is one of the system's limitations on the powers of the judiciary, that only a direct order can engender contempt. I can't believe a self-professed constitutional "expert" doesn't know something that childishly simple, or that a self-professed "libertarian" would want to remove that limitation and give judges the unlimited power to cite those who simply disagree with their opinion.

But go ahead and try if it's that important to you. It would be funny to watch. 

All 4 courts that ruled are on the same level, none of them can bind or overrule the others. So at this point basically it's just as constitutional as it is unconstitutional and vice versa until and unless we hear from the higher courts. That's a little simplified, but pragmatically how the situation is right now. *shrug*

The VA case will likely be the first to be heard on appeal since it's in the 4th's rocket docket. This issue has a long, long way to go before it can be resolved. My advice to you, Pubis, is to wipe the spittle off your monitor, grab a cold one and relax a little, sit back and enjoy the ride.


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 5, 2011)

I'm sure its already been pointed out, but just in case.....

Its 28 States now, not 26.


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 5, 2011)

Oh.....one other note:

Popular opinion is that this will skip the Appellate Courts and go straight to SCOTUS on the fast track.

Carry on


----------



## goldcatt (Feb 5, 2011)

Mini 14 said:


> Oh.....one other note:
> 
> Popular opinion is that this will skip the Appellate Courts and go straight to SCOTUS on the fast track.
> 
> Carry on



That would also be unconstitutional. Which only goes to show the state of education in this country if that is, indeed, popular opinion. 

But never fear, they picked VA North and the 4th as one of their test cases for a reason. It'll be shot up the line as quickly as possible. This particular judge in FL might have to wait for his chiding, but the VA case is the properly handled one anyway.


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 5, 2011)

goldcatt said:


> Mini 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh.....one other note:
> ...



uhm.....no it isn't. 

It is rare (VERY rare, actually), but it has been done before (precedent exists).

How could it possibly be unconstitutional????

The Appellate Courts exist to reduce the case burden on the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS maintains the power to hear ANY case it wants, and their ruling is final. 

I agree with the popular opinion here, that the SCOTUS will call the case directly, and issue the ultimate verdict as time is of the essence in this case. That being so, the appellate ruling would be immaterial and insignificant.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 5, 2011)

Publius1787 said:


> *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*
> 
> *1.* Once a federal judge deems a law unconstitutional, no matter what other judges have ruled, THE PRESIDENT MUST ABIDE BY IT!
> 
> ...


If this happened, I'd laugh myself silly.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2011)

goldcatt said:


> I can't believe this bullshit thread is still active.
> 
> The OP is an idiot. First of all, no State has "found" anything let alone 26, it's a Federal statute and a Federal question. The states file, they don't decide. Basic, bare bones jurisdictional issue there not to mention preschool level counting, and the OP blows it.
> 
> ...



The Florida Judge, Judge Vinson, elected not to issue any injunction upon the ground, clearly stated by him, relying on case law, that since he had found the mandate portion to be unconstitutional and since that portion was not able to be validly severed from the rest of the law, the *entire* Obamacare law was unconstitutional.  That being the case, and on the legal assumption that Federal parties would comply with a judicial determination (in this case the complete voiding of the Obamacare law), there was no need for any stay.

I highlighted part of GC's analysis because she is mistaken there.  And, again, she's also wrong in (implicitly) saying that Judge Vinson voided ONLY the mandate portion of the law.  That's incorrect.  He very clearly ruled that the *entire law was unconstitutional.*

I'd be curious to know the legal theory relied upon by the Administration that justifies *any* efforts of any kind to put any part of a voided law into effect until and unless Judge Vinson's ruling is either stayed or reversed.

Furthermore, it is quite possible for the SCOTUS to take this case directly, now.  I have no reason to believe they will.  But that's different than saying that they cannot.  Yes, they can.  





> According to court rules, petitions to bypass appellate review are granted only in cases that are of "such imperative public importance" that they require changing normal procedures.


 Virginia to seek expedited Supreme Court review of suit over health-care law

In fact, one of the most famous times the SCOTUS granted an EXPEDITED review was in the Nixon case.  United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690 (1974)

AG Cuccinelli's application will be made, he maintains*, based upon Supreme Court Rules, Rule 11:



> *SUPREME COURT OF THE U.S. - RULES*
> ..Part III. Jurisdiction on Writ of Certiorari
> 
> Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment
> ...


 See, SUPREME COURT RULES - Rule 11

________________
*  020311_HealthCare_Expedited


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 5, 2011)

gekaap said:


> I don't see how an opt out will satisfy any constitutional question.  If the health care bill is unconstitutional as an over reach of the government's powers, including a state level opt out feature won't do anything to satisfy that alleged over step.



It's the mandate that's being claimed is unconstitutional.  If you can opt out of a mandate, it's not a mandate.


----------



## The T (Feb 5, 2011)

Mini 14 said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > Mini 14 said:
> ...


 
What the plan is by Obama, and the Statists is to press on and get people ensconced in the new law so far that it will be argued that it cannot be repealed due to the numbers of people enrolled.

For the Obama administration to put their noses in the air and just state that the Judge is just an activist, and plod on ignoring the ruling is just cause to put the Obama administration under close scrutiny.

Let us hope that the several States and their State's Attornies that are plantiffs are paying attention, and do move to hold Obama in Contempt of the ruling AND the Constitution istself.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 5, 2011)

goldcatt said:


> That would also be unconstitutional. Which only goes to show the state of education in this country if that is, indeed, popular opinion.



Untrue.  The constitution grants the SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction in any case that involves a question of federal law.  Statute provides for various procedural methods to appeal to the SCOTUS, including from district court, from state courts, and even appealing a case that is currently in appellate court and has not yet been decided.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how an opt out will satisfy any constitutional question.  If the health care bill is unconstitutional as an over reach of the government's powers, including a state level opt out feature won't do anything to satisfy that alleged over step.
> ...



If you can't grant yourself an opt out, it remains a mandate.

And if you can't nevertheless opt out without being fined (or worse) then it is absolutely still a mandate.

fuck.  This stupid Administration can't even get its story straight on whether it is or isn't a tax.


----------



## gekaap (Feb 5, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> gekaap said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how an opt out will satisfy any constitutional question.  If the health care bill is unconstitutional as an over reach of the government's powers, including a state level opt out feature won't do anything to satisfy that alleged over step.
> ...



The arguments that keep being presented is that it is an overstep of the federal government's powers.  If that is true, then no state level opt out measure will satisfy the alleged over step of power.  The action still comes from the federal government, so it would still be unconstitutional.


----------



## The T (Feb 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > gekaap said:
> ...


 
Indeed. The opt-out MUST be applied for and it's only good for a year from what I read. And just look who's asking for opt-outs...the very same folks that supported this abomination to begin with.

~_Go figure_


----------



## Terral (Feb 5, 2011)

Hi Publius:



Publius1787 said:


> *Should the 26 States That Overturned Obamacare File To Hold Obama in Contempt?*



The answer is 'No.' Because Americans are unaware: Even an illegal alien foreign national squatting in the White House is NOT supposed to have any legislative agenda. Our three-tiered Federal Govt includes a Legislative Branch (House and Senate) that creates laws, an Administrative Branch that enforces the laws and a Judicial Branch that applies those laws to individual cases. Obama's job as the highest law enforcement officer in the USA is to ENFORCE laws like the *Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986* (wiki), which he is ignoring completely!

If Obama really wanted to create a single job, then he would do something about his 20 Million Man Illegal Alien Labor Pool! The people to hold accountable for ObamaCare are your elected representatives in both houses of the corrupt congress who are supposed to be providing 'Congressional Oversight' to ensure the Obama Administration enforces the rule of law. 

The whole US system is imploding, so throw stones at Obama if that makes going down the toilet feel that much better ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## The T (Feb 5, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Publius:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Doesn't mean that those involved shouldn't call these people on their ignorence to the LAW.

It's high time these people be called out for what they are doing, and that means doing as they damned well please while telling the American people to essentially _go to hell._


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 5, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Publius:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not the topic, and it's probably the most retarded analysis I've ever heard; Kicking out 'Illegals' will 'Create jobs.'  It thwarts even the most rudimentary forms of economic thinking.

An individual, regardless of their legal status, is a provider *AND* a consumer.  By your theory, we ought to be able to 'Create jobs' by throwing out citizens just the same.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 5, 2011)

Interesting the media didn't even touch this story for a second.If this was the Bush administration and it happened the liberal media would be screaming for impeachment.


----------



## Cuyo (Feb 5, 2011)

Rozman said:


> Interesting the media didn't even touch this story for a second.If this was the Bush administration and it happened the liberal media would be screaming for impeachment.



Bullshit.  There _were_ articles of impeachment introduced against Dubya and the mythical 'liberal media' didn't even touch that.


----------

