Feds ask Florida judge to clarify meaning of health care ruling [Archive] - RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF

: Feds ask Florida judge to clarify meaning of health care ruling

Eric Johnson
02-19-2011, 02:38 PM


Updated: Friday, 18 Feb 2011, 12:08 PM EST
Published : Friday, 18 Feb 2011, 11:36 AM EST

(NewsCore) - The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to clarify the immediate impact of his ruling last month that declared the new health care law unconstitutional, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

US District Court Judge Roger Vinson in Florida, considering a challenge to the health care overhaul by a group of 26 states, ruled Jan. 31 that the entire law must be declared void. Judge Vinson found only one part of the law unconstitutional -- the provision requiring individuals to carry health coverage or pay a penalty -- but he said it was impossible to disentangle that part from the rest of the law.


02-19-2011, 02:53 PM
Isn't that ironic? Now that the states are telling the feds to buzz off on Obamacare, the feds want help from the judge? When it was the other way around, they were only too happy too say "he's only one judge" & it will be appealed anyway... Funny how that works.

02-19-2011, 03:55 PM
Hmm, the version I read yesterday said that Justice was requesting an order that the States must go ahead in implementing O-care, not waiting until the appeals process plays out. Little bit different scenario than what you posted Eric.
The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Florida judge who struck down the health care overhaul to declare that the law must still be obeyed...In his ruling, Vinson implied that the government did not have the authority to enforce an unconstitutional law.
“We believe it is important to put to rest any doubts about the ability of states and other parties to continue to implement these critical programs and consumer protections provided under this statute,” Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.


02-21-2011, 07:39 PM
Thoughts on on unconstitutional laws;

"There is no position whcih depends on clearer principles, that that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commsission underwhich it it exercised is void.
NO legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution is valid.
To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal,
that the servant is above his master,
that the representatives of the peope are superior to the people themselves;
that men, acting by virtue of powers, may only do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. "

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78