• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal

    “It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.”

    So wrote Judge Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida yesterday while becoming the second federal judge to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate. Like Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Vinson also found that Section 1501 of the act, which forces all Americans to buy government-approved health insurance policies, “falls outside the boundary of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority and cannot be reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers.” But then Judge Vinson went even further, concluding that “the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.” Accordingly, Vinson concluded: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

    In reaching the decision to strike down the entirety of Obamacare, Judge Vinson used the Obama Administration’s own words against them, noting that their own filings with the court claimed that the law’s other provisions “cannot be severed from the [individual mandate].” In addition, Judge Vinson notes that Congress could have easily included a severability clause in the legislation if they wanted to, that an earlier version of Obamacare did indeed have such a clause, but Congress intentionally removed the severability clause in the final bill. Judge Vinson wrote that the Obama Administration has “asserted again and again that the individual mandate is absolutely ‘necessary’ and ‘essential’ for the Act to operate as it was intended by Congress. I accept that it is.”

    Judge Vinson’s decision is a body blow to Obamacare that the law will never recover from. The New York Times claims the decision “even[s] the score at 2 to 2,” and The Washington Post “reports”: “Four suits have now been decided on their merits—two rulings upholding the law and, with Monday’s decision, two finding all or part of it unconstitutional.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Only two Obamacare cases have moved passed preliminary motions and reached the merits of the case: Judge Hudson’s Virginia decision and Judge Vinson’s decision yesterday. More importantly, the parties involved in yesterday’s case make it unique. A majority of all states in the union (26) have joined forces with the National Federation of Independent Businesses to challenge this intolerable act. Heritage Foundation legal scholar Robert Alt comments: “If not completely unprecedented, the very fact that more than half the states marched into federal court on behalf of themselves and their citizens to challenge an unconstitutional federal program falls into the category of ‘beyond any recent memory.’”

    Even more troubling for the Obama Administration, by granting declaratory relief to the parties involved (which as mentioned above includes 26 states), Judge Vinson has in effect stopped implementation of Obamacare dead in its tracks. Because the entire act was struck down, the future requirements to expand Medicaid programs will be suspended—at least as to these 26 states—and these states will be relieved of their obligation to make plans for such expansion in the immediate future.

    At a time when many states face insolvency, the removal of this burden is welcome news. But America’s friends of liberty and opponents of Obamacare cannot rest here. It was not a coincidence that within an hour of Judge Vinson’s ruling, Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) announced he had secured signatures from all 47 Republican Senators on a bill to repeal Obamacare in the Senate. The House already repealed Obamacare earlier this January.

    The United States economy, and the American people, cannot wait for the Supreme Court to render a final decision. Obamacare is not just a judicial question. It is a fundamental question about what kind of country we want to live in. Do we want an America of limited government and vibrant economic growth? Or do we want to move toward an unlimited European-style welfare state?

    Quick Hits:

    • As thousands of Egyptians protest in the streets, President Hosni Mubarak has authorized his Vice President to talk with opposition leaders, and the military declared that it will not use force against the protesters.
    • Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ) on Monday called on the Obama Administration to resolve several disputes over how the Russians are interpreting New START.
    • The Obama Administration failed to release a Dodd-Frank-mandated report yesterday on how to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
    • The Obama Administration’s nuclear energy policy is failing to revive the nuclear power industry.
    • Governors in Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, and New Jersey have called for the elimination or dismantling of teacher tenure.
    Posted in First Principles, Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    60 Responses to Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal

    1. Renate Ruth, Yuma, A says:

      Why not let the people decide. Lets have a national vote on obamacare!!

    2. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      1- 21-11 FROM – Ken Jarvis – LVKen7@Gmail.com

      john arizona on January 31st, 2011 at 12:24pm said:

      I hear Ken Jarvis is blaming

      FOX News,

      Ruppert Murdoch and the

      WSJ for unrest in Egypt.

      *** John, Close

      but the HF is blaming Obama -

      for unrest in Egypt.

      They call it – "Egypt and the Failure of the Obama Doctrine"


      Front page of WSJ today (Sat 1-29-11) – "Economy Picks up Steam,

      Output Returns to '07 Level"

      Things will PICK UP NOW.

      Thank YOU, Mr. Murdoch.

    3. ronald bell, Springf says:

      What is going on in Egypt, makes the health care debate a moot point, We are heading to the abyss, with the READER of our country, turning a deaf ear, on the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD takeover of EGYPT, we are being diverted to other things , of lesser importance, The Republicans, are falling in to lock step cowering to the Administration, WE may have already been taken over by OBAMA's Muslim leaning preference as he stands by and says one thing but his actions portray his true intent, Dismantle, Disrupt, Destroy our USA with out firing a shot.Time to Pray, and stop this insanity.

    4. M. Barton, Virginia says:

      I did read the very beginning of Judge Vinson's ruling and found it fascinating. Heartening, really, in these times when so many who have been educated at universities emerge with a tainted understanding of America's foundations. For over a century now, textbook authors who write of America, whether graduate, undergraduate, or secondary, as well as the teachers and professors who "profess" before their students have been drinking the rather red-hued "tea" of Progressive revisionism. Even the most well-meaning secondary history teacher has heard more often than not the anti-American rhetoric that seeps into the studied, seemingly-fair-and-dispassionate monologue of her professors and the writers she reads.

      I have been reading more American history these days and find that much of what I've been taught has been in error — and I was educated in the good old days prior to the creation of a federal "Dept. of Education." Praise Heaven for THAT. There have been many significant details of American history omitted from textbooks.

      And I have well-educated friends who refuse to read fully-documented materials on our Founders. Not because the documentation and the quotes are lies or errors, but simply because these friends have adopted a bias (adopted from the mainstream media) against the people who have read the original records and have brought these quotes and ideas and events (factual and incontrovertible) to the light of day — and the minds of those willing to read and to explore.

      So I am grateful for Judge Vinson and his reaching back to the very foundation of our dear system of government to reach his decision. He has done a tremendous service to his country in so doing. I pray that when the Supreme Court hears this case, certain Justices will not be so biased as to scan, sigh, and discount the basis for our Constitutional Republic with its self-avowed strictures of a limited government of enumerated powers. (Why have so many risked everything — even life itself — to reach our shores? It is for this — to live in the land where government does not destroy individual opportunity.)

      Future generations of Americans and legal immigrants will be beholden to Judge Vinson as we are.

      May God Bless and keep the good Judge — and our Republic.

    5. Bob, Raleigh, NC says:

      Bad couple of days for the Obama Administration, given Judge Vinson's ruling yesterday in Florida that OBAMACARE is unconstitutional and the continued debacle unfolding in Egypt. Self congratulations to all of us true Americans both represented within and outside of the Tea Party Patriots! Keep the pressure on, do not let up, for the USS OBAMA is a rudderless ship, manned by a phantom Commander-in-Chief, taking on copious amounts of water and heading towards the rocks just over the horizon!

    6. Dennis Georgia says:

      It is a releaf to see that at least two Federal Judges have the since to realize that the supposed health care bill is wrong. It will be interesting to watch the liberals as they scream and rant about this decision. I am sure that reid and pelosi will have lots to say about this and am suprised that some sort of statement from both is not out and about. I hope the supreme court justices see things the same way and do not fall for the political push that they will face.

    7. ThomNJ says:

      "Because the entire act was struck down, the future requirements to expand Medicaid programs will be suspended—at least as to these 26 states—and these states will be relieved of their obligation to make plans for such expansion in the immediate future." – I don't think suspension can be selective – it applies to all states whether part of the suit or not.

      Also, the other worry is that obama and cronies will just ignore the judge's decision – just as they did in the Gulf of Mexico when they sweepingly banned so many oil operations. obama and the rest of the Social Democrats live by their own laws and rules – which they seem to make up at times….and which are different for them versus the rest of us.

    8. Doug Whaley, Lake Ha says:

      It really would be nice if every person in the country understood that this is a crossroads in our history and that the final decision on Obamacare will determine whether the country has a chance of going forward as it was designed to do or will turn into a European style welfare state.

      Perhaps if this isn't decided by the 2012 election Republicans would make this case for their party. Do you want the United States to remain as it has been for the past 200 plus years or do you want it to become just like Greece, Great Britain, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the rest of them? The results woulld show us once and for all just what chance the country has for the future. I'm sure Tea Party people would like to see this stark choice. I'm not sure establishment Republicans would want to see it.

    9. Richard H. Irish, Ed says:

      This might be the first unconstitutional "law" by this unconstitutional "president" to be shut down. Now it is time to shut down the rest of them by indicting the usurper for fraud, extortion and the other multitude of crimes he has commited against our nation and our Constitution.

    10. KB in PA says:

      Next up: What will "The Administration" do? Will it proceed in a lawful manner, and accept the ruling? After all, is it not the Leftists who have encouraged, aye, established the superiority of the courts over legislation, striking down the powers of the voters and the states right and left, whenever it serves their purposes?

      Yes, it is. Excellent. So let's proceed along those lines, shall we?

      Therefore, if "The Administration" refuses to accept the ruling of this Federal Court, will charges of sedition (as rightly proposed by Mark Levin, last night) be leveled against BHO?

      Let us hope so. Let us hope no one lets this go by. Meanwhile, I am all over myself with gratitude to Roger Vinson! Rarely is vindication so sweet as when the perpetrators' own words are rammed right back down their throats.

    11. Tom Sullivan in FL says:

      "Only two Obamacare cases have moved passed preliminary motions and reached the merits of the case: …"

      I would like to see a link to the preliminary nature of the two cases which liberals love to say have been decided in favor of Obamacare. That's why I had never heard any explanation of the supposed favorable decisions for Obamacare – there is none.

    12. Sylvia, Phoenix, AZ says:

      Using the judge's reasoning for this ruling under the Commerce clause, why is the fact that we are forced by the government to "buy" Social Security and Medicare also not unconstitutional?

    13. Sue Marie Detroit says:

      Obama and his cronies will ignore the Judge's decision as stated by Thom NJ. The Republicans with the help and support from the American People and Heritage Foundation must be diligent in stopping Obama's policies.

    14. Ken, Lake Kiowa, TX says:

      God Bless our CONSTITUTION. And God bless Judge Vinson and all other Judges who can read!

    15. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Obamacare's on life support. All that's left now is to pull the plug.

    16. David Schlueter-Nort says:

      There should be at least a hand full of Democrat Senators from the 27 States that would change their votes to match the will of their constituants. If they won't do the will of the people they should be recalled and replaced.

    17. B. Eric, Syosset N.Y says:

      To R. Ruth of Yuma. We already have had a national election about Obamacare. It happened last November. If I recall correctly it was soundly rejected by the voters.

    18. Leith Wood Richmond says:

      Wonderful news about Obamacare yesterday. So disgusted with the liberal press touting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as secular and unimporrtant, plus ElBaredei as the answer to Egypt's revelolution. Not true. Oh, for mature leaders in America, who know what is really happening in that volatile part of the world. The choicesmade there will determine the future of the world. Obama refuses to see it clearly and deal with radical Muslims. Understand the changes you want, before you implement them. Americans did not think it through, before the election and we got Obama.

    19. Perkoda, San Diego says:

      Assuming that the voice of the people is upheld and the fight results in the removal of this dismal health care bill that will increase costs vice lower them (a dozen new red-tape, controlling entities does not come cheap and always costs more and more), what a great example to the rest of the world regarding freedom. No other country I can think of could reverse the will of the ruling class without bloodshed. This also assumes that the people in the other countries have the freedom to see the news of this event. Power to the people; no more tyrany from those who deign to rule us. We need to get rid of the habit of congress of exempting self…it merely sets up a path to abuse of power. If it is good for the country then congress should have no problem shouldering the burden of a law.

    20. Jeff, Fountain Hills says:

      Looks like we'll win this one.

      "Amnesty" is the biggie. That is Obama's majority, realized. That's why Napolitano won't seal our borders. Democrats and the administration want them as citizens for the next elections, totally ingratiated to their party. That the borders cannot be secured, that illegals cannot be rounded up and shipped back is a design to flood us with their voters and at the same time, their ideal citizen: dependent upon the government. They only wait for amnesty to be passed. It's just no longer possible to believe that the continuation of this failure of immigration is merely incompetence or bureaucratic ineptitude: it's a consciously managed political strategy.

    21. Mark Del Monaco, IL says:

      It's bad enough Obamacare, overtly something any freedom-yearning human would not want, was imposed upon us, but do we also have to take the slap in the face that Obama grants some 700+ waivers to the law? Where can I get a copy of the application form for the "Individual Waiver"? I think we'll need about 200 million forms. I want to buy Health Insurance like I buy car or house insurance; per my choice. I would be happy to donate to a worthy organization to help worthy causes. Our government has demonstrated they are not worthy to be entrusted with such an endevour.

    22. rosemarie douglass says:

      it was a terrific ruling by the judge , o is already plotting behind door howe to get

      that over turned,

      get red of this moslem and socialist, when are you stard empeaching him , he is coropt and dangers

      o you americans , you are so gullable and slowe in learning ,

      europe is trying to get away from socialistic ways and america is running toward full speed , with georg soro that europian sicialist and embessler leeding the runn

      ha ha

    23. Steve, Jacksonville says:

      in boxing parlance..the Obama administration and their health care cronies now have what is best described as "political rubberlegs"..now they should head to the ropes and go for the ten count. Anyone got a towel to throw ?

    24. Earl, QUEENS, NY says:

      Thank God for sensible judges like Roger Vinson!! Of course, we need to go further. Because it’s unconstitutional, can’t we say that BHO and the democraps in Congress violated their oath of office by enacting this monstrous health/hell care bill?? Is that not grounds for impeachment?? Anyway, let’s just hope that the new GOP majority will stand by its pledge to stall and sabotage Obamacare’s implementation via defunding. And the 2012 election is critical. We need to win back the White House and Senate to repeal and replace Obummercare. Isn’t it strange that democraps will call the GOP the ‘party of “NO”’?? Well, we should say “NO” to today’s leftwing Democrap Party agenda. And we should say “YES” to reductions of taxes and regulations for economic growth. And we should say “YES” to constitutional limited government. Of course, we that with the democraps, it’s vice versa. Obummercare is just one of many ways in which the democraps have violated their oath of office to uphold our Constitution!! WAKE UP AMERICA!! Vote these leftwing miscreants out of office in 2012 and beyond!!

    25. Tom Michigan says:

      Finaly a Judge who has knowsledge of the Constitution. "We shall over come some day.

    26. Michigan says:

      We shall over come.

    27. PJM, South Carolina says:

      Sign me on for the elimination of ObamaCare(lessness), 100%! However, I call on Republican Leadership to propose a Healthcare program whereby individual states can find a solution to prevent ANYONE from being without medical coverage. In a country like ours, this simply should not be! From a political perspective if you want to ensure victory at the polls, we MUST find a way for single moms, under-and unemployed folks to have coverage for their kids. No one in our country should have to choose between paying the rent and paying for health insurance. Let's get it right, this time!


    28. Angelika says:

      My comment goes towards the last sentence of the article. While I am all for a limited government I would like you to take another look at the what you call "European welfare system".

      I am German, having lived 26 years in the USA and have experienced both. The kind of welfare state that provides healthcare to all citizens is not as bad as you make it sound like. I have not received "the really good" care now like I used to because of the healthcare insurance provider who make large profits and don't pass anything on to the consumer but it sure is nice to have a 20 hour -week job and be fully covered. Dental, healthcare, vision.

      Why do you try to paint that as something negative?

    29. Lil, San Diego says:

      I cannot conceive the Holder Justice Department coming up with a feasible argument refuting the opinion of Judge Vinson. As someone earlier stated, this is a crossroads moment for this nation, hopefully the leadership will realize that WE, the American people, do NOT want nor will support the nanny states that have become Europe.

    30. Pingback: Tweets that mention Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    31. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      I'll bet the Judge had – "publicly funded health insurance plan"

      The Missing Piece to HCare.

      ALL of Congress is on a "publicly funded health insurance plan"

      So, If ObamaCare is Repealed

      let's REPEAL ALL – "publicly funded health insurance plan"

      And make it illegal for Companies to fund HCare for their employees.

    32. dadeo, Michigan says:

      As of this morning, not quite 24 hours since the Judge's ruling, there has been no indication whatsoever that this administration recognizes that it must cease implementation of the law, and very few news reports are acknowledging that the ruling forces the stoppage of implementation. The meme seems to be business as usual.

      The Judge himself, on page 78 of the ruling, says there is a presumption on his part that the government will obey the courts, and therefore he didn't need to provide separate injunctive relief beyond this ruling. So my question is, if the administration and regulatory bodies of government choose not to obey this ruling, what are our recourses? What can the people do? How are they held to the law if they refuse to acknowledge the law?

    33. Kat Oliver says:

      A more important question-do we want to remain the United States of America or do we want to redefine this country into something with European principles? If we as citizens do not uphold the Constitution-we should rename this country-the experiment of self rule would have failed. We have our very existence riding on repealing obama care.

    34. ckirkland says:

      This administration is so arrogrant. How dare he refuse to abide by this Judges decision. Didn't he supposedly teach Constitutional law????? People wake up!!!!CK

    35. Mike, New York says:

      Congratulations to all at The Heritage Foundation, a giant step forward to repeal Obamacare, next big challenge is to reduce the out of control spending, I hear Obama talking about increasing spending for education, with the highest paid teachers in the world,and the low performance of our students, I believe the solution to our failing system should be: slash budgets by 50%, get rid of non-performing teachers and tenure, all other entitlements, raise the academic bar in math and science, and be ready to give big bonus to the performing educators, let's run it like a business. Mike

    36. Pingback: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal | Fix Health Care Policy

    37. Bobbie says:

      Judges are suppose to judge without bias. These two honorable men, Judge Hudson and Judge Vinson are as judges should judge, without bias and devoted to their position and expectation of standing and judging according to the law. May all judges come to judge the same.

    38. Bmerri01 says:

      now when are the members of the senate going to vote to repeal the Obamacare? Then it will be in the lap of President Obama. Imagine the bad fame when he will not sign a bill that has been passed by both houses of congress to repeal a law that has been declared unconstitutional and the majority of the states of the United States are a party to the lawsuit fighting for the repeal of this law. He will have the appearance of a Dictator and not a President with no desire to give in to the will of the citizenry. Just like the attitude of our President to think he is better than the rest of us. Typical of him to look down his nose at the rest of the country. Look closely at many of his pictures. He looks like he is looking down his nose at people or the camera….

    39. Pingback: Chicago Tea Patriots | Roger Vinson of Florida Becomes 2nd Federal Judge to Strike Down Obamacare’s Individual Mandate, Cites Original Tea Party’s Protest Against British Tyranny

    40. Nancy, Georgia says:

      Leith Wood Richmond on February 1st, 2011 at 11:23am said:

      Wonderful news about Obamacare yesterday. So disgusted with the liberal press touting

      …etc. Leith do you remember the days of high school elections when the administrators admonished us that the elections are not "popularity contests"? That's all this election was. And really, who did we have for our side? McCain? Still we garnered a decent percentage of the vote. Imagine what it will be in 2012 when we have someone real to vote for! Pithy slogans and ephemeral "hope" will not suffice in '12. This guy Obama won the election on a slogan, a great oratorical style (for some anyway) and a smile. He won the highest most powerful office in the world on nothing…no legislative experience, no private sector experience; a man who is always "the least experienced in any room he walks into" (Rush Limbaugh) Shame on America and it's teachers of history. We should ALL know better.

    41. Dave Backs, Nashvill says:

      My favorite part of Judge Vinson's ruling:

      "If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

      If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal

      controls on government would be necessary. In framing a

      government which is to be administered by men over

      men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable

      the government to control the governed; and in the next

      place oblige it to control itself."

      President James Madison and architect of the Constitution

    42. Nick O'Dell. Ph says:

      Since when did Obambi, Pelosi or Reid – or for than matter the majority of Democrats – care about the Constitution?

      The "smart money" is that the US Supreme Court will hear this case within months, and agree with Judge Vinson by the usual 5:4 conservative:liberal split. There are three certs. on the conservative side, plus, almost certainly, Chief Justice Roberts. However, it's still quite possible that Obama & Co. will prevail because, as always, Justice Kennedy will be the deciding vote, and nobody can predict his vote.

      What Justice Sotomayor – who has no business being on the USSC in any case – should do is recuse herself, as she was Solicitor General before being elevated to the Supremes, and as such represented the Obama administration at the time ObamaCare was being advanced.

      Don't hold your breath for that to happen. Remember, she was the one who, forgetting that the mic was on, said that judges should make law [instead of administering it], a clear breach of her oath of office (making law is the responsibility of the other branch of government, the Legislature.) Here is her golden opportunity to advance her lifelong liberal activist agenda.

    43. Paul Revere II, Broo says:

      If there is executive defiance of the federal judiciary, do we have grounds for impeachment of Obama, Holder. et al?

    44. Pingback: Severable (sev-er-a-bul) / Framing the Dialogue

    45. TRex, Florida says:

      I respectfully dissent from virtually commentators in this thread. One can pick an choose portions of early American history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution and its Amendments to advance alternative views on most disputed issues, as the learned judge has done here. I view Constitutional principles as concepts rather than conceptions, and the idea that we can divine e.g. what side Madison would have come down on a particular issue is unfounded.

    46. R D Fry Olathe Kansa says:

      We come not to Defend State Sovereignty But to Bury It

      One again I am amazed at the number of people who cheer the rulings in these federal District Courts on “Obama care”. Doesn’t anyone read the Constitution anymore yet !???? Please look at Article III §2 l. 2.:

      “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

      “Original jurisdiction” means the authority to hear the case in the first instant not on appeal! The states as sovereigns must give their consent to be sued and such consent includes as to where they will be sued. Under Art. III the states have consented to being sued only in the U.S. Supreme court not in any inferior court of the federal government. These other courts lack authority under the constitution to hear a case in which a state is a party. The states also retained the sovereignty right to sue directly to the U.S. Supreme court.

      Let me repeat, the states’ ability to sue or be sued in the federal court system is an incident of their very sovereignty itself! Therefore, the federal government suing Arizona in a federal District court and Florida and Virginia suing in federal District courts is an attack on the states very sovereignty.

      The authority for the states to make any challenge against the federal government is based on the states’ sovereignty and only their sovereignty. If we allow the federal government to disregard the states’ sovereignty and the states themselves undermine their own sovereignty what chance is there for the Republic?

      These suits have premised on federal statutes but as we know, since Marbury v Madison, any law contrary to the constitution is void. The statutes used are either unconstitutional as written or as applied. I do not care about all the smoke and mirrors regarding concurrent jurisdiction and exclusive and non- exclusive original jurisdiction. I have reviewed the constitution, the case law and the judiciary acts. Article III is the law.

      These ccases will only hurt state sovereignty no matter what the courts ultimately determine. This damage will ultimately turn out to be worse for the states and We the People than “Obama are” ever would have been. And, it is all not necessary because both issues can be resolved by filing directly in the Supreme Court.

      What is worse there is no benefit to under cutting state sovereignty. The cases will take long to resolve, they will cost more, and the Supreme Court can refuse to hear them as they are on an appellate track and we will be exposed to two or three more years that Obama will get to appoint another justice to the Supreme Court. Where do you think the states will end up then?

      Perhaps we really do end up with the government we deserve.

      Richard D. Fry

      General Counsel

      Patriot Coalition

      For more info go to rejoinordie.Com

    47. C.Berto, San Anselmo says:

      Living as I do in ultra-ultra-left-liberal Marin County, CA, the ruling by Judge Vinson comes as a badly-needed breath of fresh air and moral support. What courage, what scholarship he and Judge Hudson have shown! Now I hope and pray the Republicans in Congress will swiftly write and introduce a sensible, practical, affordable Health Care bill, keeping the few good parts of Obamacare, throwing out the many bad ones, and adding some valuable new issues, such as buying health insurance across state lines. . CB

    48. Linda, Louisiana says:

      The last paragraph of your article; particularly, the last couple of lines sums up what is at stake here. That is "FREEDOM" of the American citizens, freedom to choose. If I can accurately recall a phrase, "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    49. laurie, Hawaii says:

      Thank God for this brave wonderful Judge Vinson! Some sense in this horror of brainless administration wolves panting to take over global power while continueing to be in bed with the ruthless enemies of freedom. How shameful of our worthless ones who were bribed to pass this painful massive take-over of our health care freedom so that we have to spend our precious resources untangling the mess so we can finally work on our economy…..which they have so stupidly managed to destroy by preventing oil drilling here and passing bills that destroy every shred of free enterprise and business and job creation in this country. The Christmas Eve massacre bill, thank you Pelosi, Obama and Reid!. Where were you during math classes that you do not understand a trillion???? Or perhaps you do understand its massiveness when you can get it into your pockets in exchange for our devastating losses. We must CRUSH these horrible bills before our country is crushed by them and their brainless heads!

    50. Larry, Utah says:

      I agree wholeheartedly with Judge Roger Vinson's findings on the Obamacare Law. Surely there are enough clear thinking Senators to vote for repeal of this unconstitutional edict. If not, I hope the voters will clean house in 2012. We've got to have patriotic statesmen fill the seats of congress before we lose all our freedoms.

    51. Kevin H, college par says:

      The complaint against the healthcare reform bill is that the constitution doesn't permit the federal government to order anyone to buy a product or service. That supposedly renders illegitimate the individual insurance mandate that is part of the bill.

      However that argument suffers from a glaring historical flaw. Only a few years after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress approved the Militia Act of 1792, which was duly signed by President George Washington.

      The Militia Act explicitly required every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few occupational exceptions, to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."

      Clearly the founders saw no constitutional barrier to a law ordering every citizen to buy a gun and ammo. Quotations of the Militia Act can be found on hundreds of right-wing blogs where it is often cited to demonstrate that the founders would have despised gun control. How ironic it is for them to quote this venerable statute alongside their anguished protests against the constitutional validity of any federal mandate.

      The Militia Act
      http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/SOURCES…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

      Ripped off and edited down from…

    52. Kevin H, college par says:

      Also, see:

      The Founding Fathers "Socialized Medicine"



      Seems as if many conservatives would call George Washington and our Founding Fathers as socialists who are trying to break apart the constitution.

    53. Pingback: Will President Obama Abide by Court’s Decision and Suspend Obamacare? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    54. LL, MI says:

      Many liberals are saying the White House needn't abide by the ruling until it's decided in the Supreme Court. Is that true of all rulings? They claim that although the three branches of government are equal, the district court by itself is NOT equal to the executive branch, therefore obamacare may proceed as planned while the ruling is ignored.

      Then what is the point of lower court rulings? Only to set the appeals process in motion?

      I'm wondering, did the initial Roe v Wade district court decision go into effect right away, or not until the Supreme Court ruled?

      I would welcome any clarification about this.

      Thank you!

    55. Jim Buzzell says:

      We all, now need to wait; I am holding my breath while this works its way to a SCOTUS hearing, I know how Thomas, Scalia, Alito, will come down on this issue, I am not sure on Kennedy, or Roberts, and that is what scares me, are those two really constitutional conservative hawks, or are they constitutional progressives? I think the jury is really out on those two justices. We all know Kagan will not recuse herself, as she did not do so in conference when Kerchner, etal, v. Obama, etal came to the court in January of this year, and, by vote was not scheduled to be heard on its merits.

    56. Bobbie says:

      Kevin, was it an order or sound advice in the best interest of protection and safety?

      You do realize we are in the 21st century, right?

    57. Mary , Georgia says:

      I am commenting on the comments made about our current Medicare Advantage Healthcare costing the Government so much. We have been on this program for several years, and we get notices after we visit a Dr. or have a test done, etc. The notices show what the charge for the visit or procedure is, the amount the Insurance pays ( which is always very little) and the amount the Dr, cannot collect per the program. It also what we are required to pay and not required to pay. We pay a monthly premium for the insurance, also a dollar amount is taken out of our SS check each month almost $100.00 and we pay a copay for all visits, and procedures. The Doctors are the ones not getting the money they usually do, but they agree to take this insurance, and they get lost of volume. I am sick and tired of hearing how Medicare is costing the taxpayers and has to be revised. What about Medicaid? These people get treated for free, and pay no premiums, and many of them are illegals in our country. We paid into SS for years, and origianally we were told it was going to a Trust Account, which is no longer true, and hasn't been for years. President Obama does not like any medicare, but he is okay with Medicaid. I would like to hear and see the News Media and Congressmen and Senators quit accusing Medicare of costing so much. I would gladly like to have a Health Savings Account, but that is not offered to us Seniors. We have paid our way all our life, and we are still paying our way, and I would not want it any other way, but some explanations need to be made public and explained to our leaders in Washington,DC that we are not costing the government any money on the Medicare Advantage Programs. I don't any Medicare is costing unless the recipient cannot pay anything, and that is Medicaid. I do hope our Supreme Court agrees the the Obama Healthcare is unconstitutional. It is a terrible bill, and will cost more money and be less effective. If it is so good, why don't the Government so called Elite have to be on it. I would love their insurance, and would be willing to pay for it. But we help pay for their topnotch insurance. They are supposed to be working for us. HELP…… lets be honest.

    58. Patrick Manley says:

      It is inconceivable that the United States Supreme Court would fail to uphold Judge Vinson's ruling. The Republican Party must commit to a concrete plan to reduce health care costs to the point where all Americans can actually afford some type of coverage, but only if they choose to do so.

    59. Pingback: Will President Obama Abide by Court’s Decision and Suspend Obamacare? | Fix Health Care Policy

    60. R D Fry, Olathe says:

      In Response to : Kevin H, college park, md on February 2nd, 2011 at 11:19am said:

      Muskets are not Medicine Except for Tyranny

      Kevin H’s attempt to equate the government requiring the country’s militia members to purchase muskets with Obama Care requiring citizens to purchase medical insurance is historically and philosophically incongruent.

      It has been recognized for centuries if not over a millennium that there are special rights and obligation between a nation and its citizens. This is based on the concept of allegiance under which a citizen or subject has a right to have their government protect them wherever they go. Likewise the citizen subject has a duty to answer the call of the government to help maintain the peace under the concept of posse comitatus or to defend against invasion under the concept of a militia. They may also be drafted in the county’s army or naval forces.

      When the Fourteenth Amendment refers to “under the jurisdiction thereof” [the United States] it is referring to the complete jurisdiction under the concept of allegiance. This is more than simply being under the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the sovereign under which all, subjects or not, come while in the territorial confines of a nation.

      For instance if a foreign national passes through the Untied State and goes to Canada, which arrests him the individual cannot look to the United States to help him even if he is being abused. Likewise the United States has no standing (legal interest) in trying to interpose itself between the individual and the Canadian government. Under the law of nations there would be no basis for such action by the U.S.

      The requirement to be prepared and equipped when called upon by one’s country can include the purchase of suitable armaments and such has been recognized for centuries as well. I do believe that the act noted by Kevin did provide that if a citizen could not afford a weapon the government would provide one and then the citizen was expected to pay the government back when he was able to do so.

      There is no similar well established legal principle for requiring a citizen to buy insurance or other commercial goods or services. Some note that in most states people have to buy insurance for their cars. But, that is not the same because: 1. That is a state action not a federal action and they are separate sovereigns with different authority, the states being plenary and the federal government’s being limited, 2. Generally the car is insured not the person so one can drive without personally buying insurance and 3. One is not required to buy insurance they can forgo buying a car.

      So while Kevin’s argument seems to hold water on first blush a more critical look at it, including from a historical perspective, reveals it is baseless.


      November Patriots

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.