Although ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, Democrats plan to continue implementating the health care law known as Obamacare.
“It is as though the Constitution doesn't matter,” Rush Limbaugh said on his Thursday radio program.
Newsbusters reports Friday that radio talk show host Mark Levin – himself an attorney - had harsh words for the Obama administration:
I said that if the administration failed to follow the law, then it was lawless. (I said that) it was violating the constitution, that this was a serious as Watergate.
... There it is on Page 75. He voided the law. It's dust. It's gone, until a higher court does something else.
CNS News asked Democratic Senator Dick Durbin if the administration should stop implementation of the law given Judge Vinson’s ruling:
“Personally, I don’t, because the judge was asked for an injunction, and he didn’t rule that there would be one. So he hasn’t enjoined any conduct or activity. At this point, we have 16 courts that have considered this case.
“Twelve of them have dismissed the complaint initially, on procedural grounds. Of the four courts that took up the substance of the Affordable Health Care Act, which you call Obamacare, they split,” he added.
“Two said it was constitutional, two said it was not, and Vinson in Florida, Judge Vinson, Monday had a chance to not only decide whether it was constitutional but to issue an injunction,” said Durbin. “He didn’t do that.”
But Judge Vinson has a different point of view. In his ruling he wrote, “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, this declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.’”
Nevertheless, Democrats plan to ignore the judge’s ruling and continue implementation of the law.
Durbin also cited the Commerce Clause as justification for the individual mandate, despite Judge Vinson’s decision that Congress overstepped its bounds. When asked about this by CNS News, Durbin said:
“Article 1, Section 8, the Commerce clause, and I think it’s clear. It is a necessary and proper application of an enumerated congressional power. And make no mistake, the people who want to escape their personal responsibility to buy health insurance, many of them will one day get sick and show up at the hospital and be treated, and their cost will be passed on to other responsible Americans who stand up and buy insurance to cover themselves and their families.”
In his response, Durbin seems to be saying that his opinion is sufficient to overrule a federal judge.
CNS News reported Friday that GOP senators would not specifically say if the Obama administration should stop implementing the 2,700+ page law that Washington Senator Patty Murray helped write.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that 80 percent of Americans want the bill left alone, but a poll released Monday by Rasmussen tells a different story.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 47% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed.
Another poll released by Rasmussen Friday shows that 54 percent think states should have the right to opt out of the law. Idaho is one of several states considering an 18th Century doctrine known as nullification to render President Obama’s signature null and void.
Once again, the Democrats are governing against the wishes of the American electorate, and defying a federal judge’s ruling at the same time.
Levin said Obamacare officially no longer exists as law since Judge Vinson voided it, and the Democrats who continue to implement it are engaging in civil disobedience:
And you insurance companies ... there is no Obamacare law officially. It's been voided. And it is not an act of civil defiance to refuse to adhere to any aspect of it. The act of civil defiance -- that is, the act of constitutional violation -- are occurring on the other side.
Barack Obama today, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of HHS today, are conducting themselves in a lawless fashion. It is they, it is they who are leading opposition to the to the United States Constitution. ... It is they who are disregarding our universal values. It is they.
Obamacare will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. If that court – the highest in the land – rules the law unconstitutional, will Democrats obey or will they declare themselves above the Constitution and the rule of law?
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, visit his Facebook page, or click the Subscribe button to receive email updates when a new article is published.
Comments
Great job on the article.
Good article Joe. Keep putting the information out there brother. I can't believe they are trying to shove this down our throats still!
It's time to pull the plug on 0bama! While we still have a Republic. Ignoring the Judge's decision, and now giving secrets about British nukes, among so many other things that have left me gobsmacked .. I have never been so disgusted in my life!
Look to page #75 of Vinson's ruling, he in part (minus some citations for purposes of brevity) writes:
"The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary”, and “drastic” remedy. 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."
The federal government HAS been enjoined, and prohibited from moving forward. Any government expenditure is unlawful. And each act is an act of contempt.
Judge Vinson is one judge whose opinions are valid in his district only. Other judges have said that the law is constitutional. Why should the Obama administration follow one judge's decision and ignore others? Only the Supreme Court can determine which judicial decision, if any, is correct.
So when a judge rules a law Republicans favor unconstitutional, it's an activist legislating from the bench, but when it's a law they don't care for, it's vital that that judge's opinion be the final word on the matter?
So hard to follow...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!