Another Court Rules Obama Care Unconstitutional

[rushmc 23]

Quote

In the Iowa gay marriage thread, you were repeatedly, and from all sides, told why the judges' ruling was non-activist. Obviously, you didn't listen.

I do not expect you to listen here, either.

Just cause they and you were all wrong does not mean I did not listen

But I guess all good conservatives who do not agree with you should really just turn around bend over and grab their ankles

And now you are being shown and told about the severability clause that was not in this bill
Yet you ignore it because of why?

In this thread you post what would indicate a judge is an activists and then you turn around (regarding the Iowa judges) and flop like a salmon on hot tin

Oh well
It is here for all to see

More for you ongoing education


http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/28312/Research_Commentary_Severability_and_Obamacare.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,558]

Sometimes the majority opinion is correct. In that thread, there were both conservatives and liberals explaining why, once the law was ruled as illegal by the highest relevant court, it could no longer exist. Which meant that people could go back to issuing marriage certificates without regards to gender.

The fact that they hadn't before was due to convention, not law.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

don't forget expensive

Got that did you

[DanG 1]

Do me a favor and read the redstate link you provided earlier.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Sometimes the majority opinion is correct. In that thread, there were both conservatives and liberals explaining why, once the law was ruled as illegal by the highest relevant court, it could no longer exist. Which meant that people could go back to issuing marriage certificates without regards to gender.

The fact that they hadn't before was due to convention, not law.

Wendy P.

Sorry Wendy but this is all wound up in a simple fact of the seperation of powers

A court is not supposed to write law
It did as it ordered same sex marriages to start on a given day
It properly should have sent the bill back to the legislator to make is consitutional

DanG wants to have it both ways on the topic of Iowa gay marriage and the Obamacare bill

The legislator took the severability clause out for the reason I listed above
Now the whole bill has been found to be unconsitutional.
The court it appears to have properly used its discression in this case
That does not make it an activist ruling

Just a ruling that the supporters do not like

But I also feel that most of them KNOW it is a correct ruling
That does not change how they feel


You know we could look ahead and lets say that a law is passed saying all adults who are under the law able to own a gun, will go buy a hand gun

The justification under the comerse clause would be that law inforcement costs would go down

Do you think that might be possible of the insurance mandate was upheld?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Do me a favor and read the redstate link you provided earlier.

I did

I know what you say

But I thought the discussion about the severablilty clause might make more sense to you coming from there

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,087]

>It properly should have sent the bill back to the legislator to make is
>consitutional

No, it shouldn't have. It should have done its job and decided whether or not the law was constitutional. It did. Are you now saying they should be more activist than that?

[DaVinci 0]

*7* Justices said there were Equal Protection Clause violations due to the different methods used by each County.

So unless you want to claim that Breyer and Souter were "conservatives".... That dog will not hunt.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Addressing media on the day after Republicans swept the country in midterm elections, Obama mentioned the burdensome aspect of the 1099 requirement for small businesses. That was also perhaps the first time Obama acknowledged the healthcare bill is actually a revenue bill because he said the provision helped make sure revenue was raised.

Also, the Feds argued that the mandate was a tax in all of the court cases
The Dems and Obama strongly rejected that is was a back door tax during the debate before passage

Why had they then argued otherwise in a court?

Also
If this bill is a cost saver why are some many waivers being given?
And over 40% of said waivers are to unions?

And then there is this

Quote

In ruling against the individual mandate, Vinson invalidated the entire piece of legislation. The law, he observed, has no severability clause "commonly included in legislation to provide that if any part or provision is held invalid, then the rest of the statute will not be affected."

So "the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit." The entire act, he writes, "must be declared void."

When the lack of a severability clause was first noticed, some thought that it had been inadvertently left out as the Democrats rushed the bill for a vote. But Vinson found otherwise, noting that a severability clause "in an earlier version of the act" was removed from "the bill that subsequently became law."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>It properly should have sent the bill back to the legislator to make is
>consitutional

No, it shouldn't have. It should have done its job and decided whether or not the law was constitutional. It did. Are you now saying they should be more activist than that?

It's job is to determing the constitutionality of a law
They did that but they went further

In Iowa today same sex marriages are happening with no law recognizing them because of a court order

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,087]

>It's job is to determing the constitutionality of a law

Agreed

>They did that

Agreed

>but they went further

No, they didn't. Indeed, in your own post, you attack them for NOT going further: "It properly should have sent the bill back to the legislator to make is consitutional"

>In Iowa today same sex marriages are happening with no law recognizing
>them because of a court order

You don't need a law to recognize them. You need a law to prohibit them.

The way things work in this country is that laws tell you what you can't do, not what you can do.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>It's job is to determing the constitutionality of a law

Agreed

>They did that

Agreed

>but they went further

No, they didn't. Indeed, in your own post, you attack them for NOT going further: "It properly should have sent the bill back to the legislator to make is consitutional" Yes, because those bodies write the laws, not the courts. this is where they over stepped their powers

>In Iowa today same sex marriages are happening with no law recognizing
>them because of a court order

You don't need a law to recognize them. You need a law to prohibit them.The rights of those married are spelled out. the only current law on the books refers to the marriage and a man and woman

The way things work in this country is that laws tell you what you can't do, not what you can do.

In some cases yes. In some cases laws spell out what is recognized

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,087]

>Yes, because those bodies write the laws, not the courts.

Correct.

>this is where they over stepped their powers

No, because they did their job and nothing more. The legislature can pass more laws if they wish. That's their job, not the court's.

>The rights of those married are spelled out. the only current law on the
>books refers to the marriage and a man and woman

OK. Let's take another example:

New York bans the purchase of guns. It goes to the state's supreme court. The court rules the law unconstitutional.

What happens then? Can people buy guns again? By your argument they cannot; they have to wait until a new law is passed that allows them to buy guns again.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I did

You must have missed this part:

Quote

But the lack of a severability clause wouldn’t necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing — the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority — and isn’t wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Court’s approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand.

Some things that the Court would likely leave unaffected would include the expansion of Medicaid, reporting obligations for businesses and hospitals, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, funds for “family planning,” expansion of state aging and disability resource centers, expanded funding for prevention programs and workplace education, reforms to inpatient rehabilitation and hospices, the addition of value-based payments for physicians and hospitals, and many provisions relating to Medicare services in rural areas… And that’s just for starters. The point is that the overwhelming portion of this legislation is not tied directly to the individual mandate.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Yes, because those bodies write the laws, not the courts.

Correct.

>this is where they over stepped their powers

No, because they did their job and nothing more. The legislature can pass more laws if they wish. That's their job, not the court's.

>The rights of those married are spelled out. the only current law on the
>books refers to the marriage and a man and woman

OK. Let's take another example:

New York bans the purchase of guns. It goes to the state's supreme court. The court rules the law unconstitutional.

What happens then? Can people buy guns again? By your argument they cannot; they have to wait until a new law is passed that allows them to buy guns again.

Different laws
the gun laws restrict something
When the court rules it removes a restriction (in your example)

Now, one could argue the Iowa marriage law restricts what is recogonized as a marriage and maybe rightfull so but, the difference it what is recongnized is spelled out specifically. Marriage is between a man a woman and it denotes what legal benifits those who marry under that law will see

It (the Iowa Marrige law) did not speciifcally ban gay marriage. It only did so by default. The court has the power to say the law is not constitutional. It does not have the power to change a law to make it constitutional in thier opinion

They can review and rule on the new law too but not write law, which they did

Spitting hairs? Maybe, but there is a difference and it is an important one

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I did

You must have missed this part:

Quote

But the lack of a severability clause wouldn’t necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing — the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority — and isn’t wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Court’s approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand.

Some things that the Court would likely leave unaffected would include the expansion of Medicaid, reporting obligations for businesses and hospitals, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, funds for “family planning,” expansion of state aging and disability resource centers, expanded funding for prevention programs and workplace education, reforms to inpatient rehabilitation and hospices, the addition of value-based payments for physicians and hospitals, and many provisions relating to Medicare services in rural areas… And that’s just for starters. The point is that the overwhelming portion of this legislation is not tied directly to the individual mandate.

Nope, I didnt
and maybe the court could have picked that route. It did not. For the proper reasons given in his opinion. that does not make him an activist. It only makes him wrong in your opinon

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,087]

>the gun laws restrict something
>When the court rules it removes a restriction

Hetero-only marriage laws restrict marriage. When the court ruled it removed a restriction.

>The court has the power to say the law is not constitutional.

Agreed. It did so. When that happened, the rights that the law removed returned to the people.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>the gun laws restrict something
>When the court rules it removes a restriction

Hetero-only marriage laws restrict marriage. When the court ruled it removed a restriction.

>The court has the power to say the law is not constitutional.

Agreed. It did so. When that happened, the rights that the law removed returned to the people.

No, the court went a step furthre and ordered marriages to be allowed.

They only had the power to say the law was wrong

How said rights returned was not the courts to decide

Hence, half of them are gone
the other half will follow shortly (the justices)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>the gun laws restrict something
>When the court rules it removes a restriction

Hetero-only marriage laws restrict marriage. When the court ruled it removed a restriction.

>The court has the power to say the law is not constitutional.

Agreed. It did so. When that happened, the rights that the law removed returned to the people.

I will say thanks for one thing here Bill

Many times in topics like this the debate slides into ones opinion of marriage rights or abortion rights

Those are differnt threads

You have stayed on the point of court powers and seperation of powers

While we will likely never agree the discussion is informative

I understand your points and postions

I just dont agree with them

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,087]

>They only had the power to say the law was wrong

I agree.

>No, the court went a step furthre and ordered marriages to be allowed.

Also agreed. However, that's not "going a step further." That's like the Supreme Court striking down a gun ban and saying "so that means you can buy guns again." They're not making law; they are simply stating what the result of their decision was. The law restricting you from buying a gun (or marrying) has been invalidated; therefore, you are no longer bound by it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>They only had the power to say the law was wrong

I agree.

>No, the court went a step furthre and ordered marriages to be allowed.

Also agreed. However, that's not "going a step further." That's like the Supreme Court striking down a gun ban and saying "so that means you can buy guns again." They're not making law; they are simply stating what the result of their decision was. The law restricting you from buying a gun (or marrying) has been invalidated; therefore, you are no longer bound by it.

I think it is going a step to far

Many constitutional scholars agree
However
Many do not

I guess that is why we have a USSC

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,558]

If the law was illegal, that means that it should not be followed.

Right?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

If the law was illegal, that means that it should not be followed.

Right?

Wendy P.

Yes
But this law spelled out what was recognized. This was struck down

But the court further ordered a fix. They wrote law

It is not the place or the power of the courst to write law

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,558]

The ILLEGAL law spelled out what was recognized by most people.

The law was illegal. It was as illegal as a law saying that Christians can't marry Jews would be.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The ILLEGAL law spelled out what was recognized by most people.

The law was illegal. It was as illegal as a law saying that Christians can't marry Jews would be.

Wendy P.

Yes
But that does not make what the court did legal now does it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln