“For tis the sport to haue the enginer Hoist with his owne petar”
When Barack Obama was a candidate for President he was opposed to instituting an individual mandate to force everyone to buy health insurance.
“If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house,” he said on a CNN morning show on Super Tuesday during the election. “The reason they don’t have a house is they don’t have the money. So our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident that if people have a chance to buy high quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. And that’s what our plan does, and nobody disputes that.”
And he expressed doubt as to how such a mandate would be enforced
“Senator Clinton is arguing that the only way to get every American covered is if you force every American to buy health care,” Mr. Obama told Iowa reporters in November 2007. “And unfortunately she hasn’t told anybody how she would enforce this mandate.”
But Obama was dragged kicking and screaming into the position that a personal mandate was now necessary.
“I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption.”
How about 700 plus of them, mostly for the same unions who lobbied for this exact reform? Obama thought it was hysterical that anyone could think that his plan would increase the cost of health care.
“You may have heard once or twice that this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity. That’s about how it’s been portrayed by opponents,” he joked to laughter among the crowd at a FamiliesUSA conference in Washington.
Those 700 employers have been granted exemptions because complying with Obamacare would be…….wait for it……..
too expensive.
As if that wasn’t amusing enough, along comes Judge Roger Vinson. Vinson should be awarded a Ph.D. in Irony. He ruled that Obamacare was un-Constitutional and he used the words of candidate Barack Obama against the words of President Barack Obama.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.
Vinson’s ruling noted that if Congress could regulate inactivity, it could control just about anything and everything.
In his decision, Judge Vinson wrote, “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.” If Congress has such power, he continued, “it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.”
Vinson had suggested that if Congress could force an individual to buy health insurance that it might also be able to force people to eat a certain amount of broccoli.
Or buy Sarah Palin’s book.
Ezra Klein wet his pants over the ruling
More surprising is that he’s decided that the presence of the mandate means the rest of the law is unconstitutional, too, which is an extremely radical step. The full ruling has a very Bush v. Gore feeling, as Vinson concedes that his position is activist in the extreme and a break from the court’s usual preference for limited rulings, but says, in effect, that he’s going to do it just this once. “This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the ‘normal rule’ that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute,” Vinson writes, “but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.”
That puts Vinson on the far right of this debate….
and began punching keys furiously.
The legal theory currently in vogue in conservative circles holds that the Constitution’s vision of “a central government with limited power” — to use Judge Vinson’s phrase — permits the government to establish a single-payer health-care system that every American pays into through payroll taxes and that wipes out the private insurance industry but forbids the government from administering a regulated market in which individuals purchase private insurance plans and pay a penalty if they can afford coverage but choose to delay buying it until they’re sick.
There’s a chance conservatives will come to seriously regret this stratagem. I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that the Supreme Court will side with Judge Vinson and strike down the whole of the law. But in the event that it did somehow undermine the whole of the law and restore the status quo ex ante, Democrats would start organizing around a solution based off of Medicare, Medicaid, and the budget reconciliation process — as that would sidestep both legal attacks and the supermajority requirement.
John Hinderaker at Powerline is amused:
I’ve often said that I think the Washington Post is the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party, but that paper’s instant analysis of Judge Vinson’s decision, by Ezra Klein, is pathetic. Klein has no legal training, and it shows. His reaction to the decision is shrill, partisan, and unencumbered by any knowledge of the law.
And then the knockout punch
OK, JUST ONE MORE: There is, obviously, considerable humor value in seeing a kid who is on record as believing that the Constitution is too “confusing” to be understood, since it is more than 100 years old, trying to critique the constitutional analysis of a federal judge with almost 40 years of experience as a lawyer and 27 years as a judge. But is the Washington Post really in the business of providing its readers with that sort of amusement?
Maybe Miley Cyrus is available.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
I think over the next 2 years we are going to see alot of Obama’s own words used against him again and again … he is a walking contradiction given that his words are often 180 degrees out of synch with his deeds … and often out of synch with his own prior words …
$4 gas and 9+% unemployment and a $1+ trillion deficit can’t be spun in a positive light and can’t be blamed on GWB …
@Jeff:
But they will try.
Further hoist:
Bill would require all
S.D. citizens to buy a gun
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun
Now How is Obama reacting to Judge Roger Vinson’s decision?
He’s going after the JUDGE!
Personally!
Just like he did ……
with Rush,
with Joe the Plumber,
with Sean,
with Glenn.
Obama’s own White House blog is trying to run Vinson through the mud as a ”judicial activists,” whose ruling is an ”outlier!”
Obama’s dog, the Soros group, Think Progress, claims Vinson is a tea partier who ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council.
BUT Vinson actually used footnotes, one of which says some of his points came from the amicus briefs filed in the case.
Why?
Because it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).”
And so what.
@Jeff: Jeff, I don’t know how many times I’ve linked it, but I doubt truer words were ever spoken than these:
All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them.
The stuff of legends.
@Nan G, #3:
This, from the same people who hold that a requirement to buy health insurance coverage is unconstitutional?
I suppose it’s an example of the same mysterious logic that reconciles the belief that the government should stay out of our private lives with the idea that a woman has no right to end an unwanted pregnancy, or that the government has the right to break down your door and haul you off to prison if you prefer a toke of marijuana over a shot of whiskey.
I have just finished reading all of Vinson’s ruling and I would have to say it was very refreshing. It was filled with clear logic and reasoning and was for the most part very readable to a layman. How anyone could say that this man was legislating from the bench either hasn’t read the ruling or is an idiot. If any haven’t read the whole ruling, I would highly recommend it. It gives me a lot more confidence in the rule of law.
Greg, you must have missed Obama explaining how he opposed the idea of an individual mandate because, what would stop lawmakers for mandating everyone buy a home, thus eliminating the homelessness issue?
See, there is something to be gained by taking a STUPID idea all the way to its absurd end point.
The exercise is a teaching moment.
Nan, Greg isn’t what you would call a deep thinker. He thinks he doesn’t need to prove it when he says someone is lying. Keith Olberman must be his hero.
@Nan G, #7:
I should have read the linked article first. I suppose it reveals something about the American political landscape that my first inclination was to take this at face value. I remember a failed proposal in Utah mandating firearm ownership a while back; also, some town in Kansas that passed an ordinance requiring every head of a household to possess a firearm or pay a fine. This was done because the town lacked a police force. I can’t remember what happened to the ordinance.
Legislators should probably be careful with reductio ad absurdum demonstrations. I suspect there are plenty of people who might support what they’ve assumed would be seen as absurd.
Very good post! It is fun watching the lefties wiggle on the hook when a non PC, logical case is made showing that the supposed power of the Left does not comply with the foundations of our laws, the Constitution. Their arguments (spin) works for those not enlightened, but is laughable to the rest of us.
I ran across this website and book that gives a short course in combating the junk science spewed by the left. http://junkscience.com/JSJ_Course/jsjudocourse/1.html It looks like many of you here at FA have already taken a similar course to combat political spin from lefties!
The title hits home because I used to be an engineering officer. A petard is a container of gunpowder or now a firecracker in common French usage. From the start of gunpowder in warfare, engineers were responsible for artillery and its cartage, siege engines, booby traps and mines, road and bridge building, camp building, and maintenance. Napoleon advanced military engineering to a fine art. The Boer War was when engineers and artillery parted ways. Its supposedly humorous when an engineer dies by his own explosive device. I do know that its ironic that the new obamacare bill pushed by the commerce cause penalizes a citizen for doing no commerce. Hoisted by his own petard, lol. He’s a constitutional lawyer, maybe, but an affirmative action one, I guess.
Hey, take it easy on Obumble. Remember, Nancy said, “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.” I guess he didn’t read it either. It’s like the Keystone Kops are runnin’ the gubmint.
How dare you use Obama’s own words against him.
How dare you use the intentional non-severability of the law as written to declare the whole thing unconstitutional because part of it is unconstitutional.
How dare you.
Jeff–
You’re making a logical argument which implies that Obama voters would even notice – let alone care – if the man does the opposite of what he promised. They don’t notice and they don’t care. They voted for him once and will vote for him again because he has black skin. Period.
In fairness, not all Obama voters voted for him because of his skin color. Many were duped into believing he was something other than what he is-a flaming socialist. He was promoted as being something other than a politician and people ate it up without question. The truth is something else and many have learned it.
I’ve found that obama bots will vote for him again no matter what. He could club a baby seal on live TV and they would say the seal had it coming. There are those who so desperately want to believe he is what he claimed, that they weren’t fooled, and are too far into denial to ever come back.
@Hard Right: “He could club a baby seal on live TV and they would say the seal had it coming. ”
Man, that cracked me up.
My 100 foot deck collapsed from all this snow and I’ll take all the grins I can find out there. I like snow, but good God…
Greg I think you have mistaken South Dakota’s satirical law for Kansas who has never tried such a law here? Local ordanices in Kansas is ruled and regulated by County Government that town sits in, especialy so to firearms and so far there has been no County in my State’s history that has demanded in peacetime for the townfolk to be constantly armed. Then again you may have the Civil War, or more accurately the decade before the Civil War, in mind with that ordanice during the whole border conflict the Territory of Kansas was dealing with that demanded the townsfolks in the border sharing with Missouri to be armed to defend themselves from Pro-Slavery gruellias out of need of survival not due to laws.
@DrJohn:
Sorry to hear about the misfortune. Glad I could bring you a laugh in spite of it. You know, we never have snow problems like that here in AZ. In fact, you can drive up to visit the snow…then leave it behind. We can always use more Conservative voters.
@DrJohn:
S’no Joke.
The other day I sent my girlfriend a huge pile of snow.
I rang her up and asked, ‘Did you get my drift?’
If snow is made of water and water has no calories, how come snowmen are fat?
Sorry about your deck.
🙁
@Mr. Irons, #17:
The city ordinance requiring firearms was passed in Geuda Springs, Kansas, in November, 2003. Residents failing to comply were to be fined. I don’t know if the ordinance stands or has been rescinded.
@DrJohn:
Now what do you do? You won’t be able to fix it until spring.
We got 14 inches last night and they tell us to expect two more. All our roads are closed, anyone caught driving gets a $200 fine.
I was out on the top deck this morning shoveling a path so my feral cats can get to their food, it made me nervous, I stayed real close to where the deck meets the house. Hubby will snow blow it later but has to bring the snowblower in through the house because the drifts are so high. What a mess and it’s going to snow again Fri-Sun, unless that naughty weather man changes his mind.
Isn’t Gorebull Worming grand? Had to shovel another foot of it this morning. Where are the climate models? In Hawaii I guess. I’m starting to get too old for this.
Stepped outside a couple hours later, the northern winds are pouring in and now its 20 below C.
Naw , I like supportin hockey. See yas.
Oil guy from Alberta, hi, don’t complain, I have 8 feets of snow on my patio,
coming from your side, could’nt you keep it there for the rest of the winter,
@Missy: We’re waiting for a visit from the insurance adjuster. I spent most of this day pulling hundreds of pounds of snow off the roof of my house with my neighbor’s roofrake. It’s not easy shoveling on a ladder!
There isn’t a snowblower to nor a roof rake to be had within 1000 miles. All the Home Depot’s in CT are out of ice melt.
I have never seen anything like this.
@Nan G: Difference between snowmen and snow women?
@drjohn:
No, it’s not easy shoveling a roof and it’s dangerous. That is the normal for the folks in Colorado where my daughter lives, they have people whose business is shoveling roofs. You also see lot’s of homes out there with metal roofing, the snow slides off.
I wonder, with the weather changes, if we might need to check into what is done in the heavy snow areas. If this continues many people will be in trouble because roofs in our areas were not built to support so many pounds per square, we will need to shovel or suffer some expensive damage.
I’s going to be 14 below tonight, ugh! Would appreciate some global warming about now.
Why, on the rare occasions when Obama’s actions benefit America, does his base get angry? And every time his actions are hurting this nation, his base is happy? Who exactly are these people?
How exactly does dependency on the government increase “people power”?