Despite Vinson’s Ruling, Obama Dictates State Enforcement
5 March 2011 1 Comment
President Obama may claim the new title “Dictator” outside the beltway, as he decrees to states the mandatory enforcement of ObamaCare despite Judge Vinson’s ruling against the individual mandate earlier this year. Ethan Huff’s article from Natural News paints an eerie picture for the future of Washington politics and American citizens beholden to its policies. Despite the individual mandate infringing on states’ and citizens’ rights, a deeply embedded principle manifested in the Constitution via the Tenth Amendment, Obama continues to trample upon the principles of liberty and self-determination. One wonders how the President of the United States of America can sleep at night while he attempts by day to defy over half the states in the Union.
“At a recent meeting with US state governors in Washington, DC, President Obama made clear his intent to force the individual states to comply with his unconstitutional health care overhaul. Twenty-six states have already filed federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bill — and some judges have already declared it to be null and void — prior to the announcement….
In eerily dictator-style fashion, Obama stated to the governors that they are free to come up with modifications to the bill that will help make it enforceable more quickly, but that any attempts to dismantle it will not be tolerated. Such a proposition, of course, is a gross violation of the law, as a president cannot arbitrarily oppose the will of the judicial branch and demand that unconstitutional provisions be enforced.”
Perhaps Judge Vinson’s recent stay with the condition that the Obama administration file an appeal within seven days or the ruling stands has lead the President to a fit of irrationality. Not likely. He is simply continuing the trend of government expansion characterizing much of American history since the New Deal, and Judge Vinson is none to happy. In Vinson’s March 3rd ruling, he stated,
“So to ‘clarify’ my order and judgment: The individual mandate was declared
unconstitutional. Because that ‘essential’ provision was unseverable from the rest
of the Act, the entire legislation was void. This declaratory judgment was expected
to be treated as the ‘practical’ and ‘functional equivalent of an injunction’ with
respect to the parties to the litigation. This expectation was based on the ‘longstanding
presumption’ that the defendants themselves identified and agreed to be
bound by, which provides that a declaratory judgment against federal officials is a
de facto injunction….It was not expected that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one- half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to ‘clarify’.”
Important to note here is Vinson’s emphasis on a “de facto” injunction. For those unfamiliar with the term de facto, Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “Actual, existing in fact: having effect even though not formally or legally recognized.” Judge Vinson, therefore, is saying that common knowledge of our judicial system establishes a tacit agreement to any ruling the judge declares. That said, the hypocrisy coming from the Obama administration is blatant and smacks of a degree of arrogance usually reserved for the likes of America’s Dick Cheneys. Such antics are viewed by most as an attempt to implement as many provisions of ObamaCare as possible before the courts get another say in the matter. Peter Suderman says of Obama’s antics: “The thinking seems to be that the the [sic] more of the law that’s implemented, the harder it is to undo. Vinson’s ruling gives them the stay necessary to continue implementation, but says that they can’t postpone resolution forever.”
Make no mistake, implementation of ObamaCare represents a new step forward for federal rule with or without Vinson’s ruling. But the Obama administration’s chicanery in response to the ruling signifies a new threat. As Monty Pelerin (pen name) said: “From the Constitution and The Rule of Law flow all the greatness and goodness of this country. Without them, we are finished.” It seems the ball is in the states’ court, as they must now decide just how far presidential authority can reach. If they maintain resolve and continue to oppose ObamaCare’s implementation, they will force the president to abide by the law. If successful, they will embellish the term “Union” with a refreshed meaning and renewed vigor in the face of federal power.
- ObamaCare Misleading and Constitutionally Flagrant
- Ignoring Florida Court Ruling, ObamaCare an Affront to Liberty
- ObamaCare Unconstitutional Due to Lack of Severability Clause
- “IBD on ObamaCare, and a Mark Levin ‘I Told You So'” and related posts (bizzyblog.com)
- Judge Clarifies That When He Declared ObamaCare Void, He Really Meant It – Hit & Run : Reason Magazine (cricketmarie.wordpress.com)
- ObamaCare and Judge Vinson Showdown (economicnoise.com)
- UPDATE 2-Judge stays healthcare ruling, gives W.House deadline (reuters.com)