South Carolina House passes bill making ‘Obamacare’ implementation a crime

Washington Times: The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.

The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

The measure permits the state Attorney General, with reasonable cause, “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm to any person or business with the implementation of Obamacare.

Earlier this year in her state of the state address, Gov. Nikki Haley said that South Carolina does not want and cannot afford the president’s plan, “not now, not ever.”

“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington,” she said. “Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”

The nullification bill moved on to the state Senate Thursday and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,South Carolina,ObamaCare Reversals,strength,Nikki Haley

Is The Obama Administration Throwing Us Into a Constitutional Crisis Over Health Care?

Are we we experiencing a quiet constitutional crisis?

It’s well known that Judge Roger Vinson ruled yesterday that the individual mandate exceeded the powers of the federal government under the Commerce Clause. But he also ruled that because the law lacked a severability clause and the law’s proponents had argued that the individual mandate was a necessary part of the scheme, the entire law was invalid.

Wesley J. Smith explains the implications:

That means that under the ruling, the law is void and cannot be implemented from this point forward. The Administration’s legal remedy is to seek a stay of the ruling pending appeal. It cannot just defy a federal court ruling. If it tries, the plaintiffs should go to court for the injunction and/or seek an order of contempt against the administration. Pretending that the ruling doesn’t change anything when it unequivocally does, would be both a petulant and extra-legal approach to governance.

So has the Obama administration halted the implementation of the law? The answer is: No.

The website of the White House is unambiguous about this: “Implementation will continue.”

Vinson’s decision did not include an injunction to stop the implementation of health care reform on the grounds that an injunction would be superfluous. He argued that the government would stop implementing the law automatically once it was announced as unconstitutional.

That, apparently, hasn’t happened.

So here’s a question: should government officials mindful of the constitution start defying the Obama administration to honor the decision by the court? If, say, you were charged with monitoring the computers that send out rebate checks to seniors with high prescription drug costs, should you turn off the computer?

Much of this is probably theoretical. Most of the law did not yet apply, so implementation was minimal. But if you were working on implementing the law, shouldn’t you be obligated to stop work?

“Pencils down” as we used to say back when an M&A deal fell apart.

Source:  NetNet

Related:

Our Stubborn Constitution Versus Obamacare

Excerpt:

As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest string of rulings is unusual even for the 9th, which often is at odds with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/hint-supreme-court-rejects-rulings-row-west-coast-bench/

· Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench

Wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:38:18 PM · by Sub-Driver · 8 replies

FOX ^

Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench By Judson Berger Published February 02, 2011 | FoxNews.com The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week. As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest...

· Senate Rejects Full ObamaCare Repeal; Votes To Kill ‘1099’ Provision

Wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:01:00 PM · by Slyscribe · 55 replies

IBD's Capital Hill ^ | 2/2/2011 | Ed Carson

As expected, all 47 Senate Republicans voted Wednesday to repeal the sweeping health law, but no Democratic members joined them, leaving the GOP well short of the 60 needed to pass. But the bill, which easily cleared the GOP-led House last month, forced vulnerable Senate Dems to once again back the controversial legislation. Meanwhile, the Senate voted 81-17 to roll back the much-hated “1099” tax-reporting requirement. The obscure ObamaCare provision would have required companies, starting in 2012, to file a 1099 tax form every time they make cumulative purchases of $600 or more from any business.

· OBAMACARE: D.O.A.

Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:02:31 PM · by Hojczyk · 19 replies

Dick Morris .com ^ | Feb. 1 ,2011 | Dick Morris

How did Obama ever think that his program would pass constitutional muster? How could he imagine that the Interstate Commerce clause could cover something that wasn’t interstate (health insurance cannot be sold over state lines) and wasn’t commerce (failure to buy insurance is not commerce) would stand up in court? He was so sure that he would win any constitutional challenge that he arrogantly failed to put a severability clause in the bill so that it would survive even if parts were stricken down. The decision of the Florida District Court may or may not prevail in the Circuit Court....

Florida Ruling Requires Government to Stop Implementing ObamaCare

Wisconsin Leads States in Declaring ObamaCare Dead

Florida Ruling Requires Government to Stop Implementing Obamacare

Posted by Ilya Shapiro

As I continue digesting Judge Vinson’s ruling, I notice two key things beyond the facts that the “individual mandate is unconstitutional”:

1.  In performing his severability analysis — determining which parts of the overall legislation survive — the judge threw out all of Obamacare:

In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably “evident,” as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently. I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed. 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, 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.

2.  In discussing whether to issue an injunction – a judicial command to do or refrain from doing something — the judge determined that his declaratory judgment in this context was the same as an injunction.  That is, a federal court saying that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional is effectively the same as a decision mandating the government to act:

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.  [Quoting a D.C. Circuit opinion written by none other than then-Judge Antonin Scalia]

In short, if I read the opinion (plus this final judgment) correctly — quite apart from both the lofty philosophical principles I applaud Judge Vinson for adopting and the nitty-gritty technical details of his individual mandate analysis — Obamacare is dead in its tracks.  Now, Judge Vinson himself or the Eleventh Circuit (or even the Supreme Court) may issue an emergency stay of this or any other part of the ruling, but as of right now, the federal government must stop implementing Obamacare.

NB: The New York Times and Washington Post report that Judge Vinson has already stayed his own ruling pending appeal, but this is an incorrect reading of the opinion, for the reasons stated above.  Moreover, the court’s docket, which is now closed for the day, contains no such stay — nor has plaintiffs’ counsel received notice of one.

Source: Cato@Liberty

GOP Three-Part Strategy to Dismantle Obamacare

AP Graphics

House GOP begins long drive to dismantle Obamacare

By: Byron York 01/20/11 8:05 PM
Chief Political Correspondent

Everyone knows House Republicans (along with three Democrats) voted Wednesday to repeal Obamacare. But fewer people know what those same House Republicans -- this time, with 14 Democrats -- did Thursday.

By a vote of 253 to 175, the GOP directed key House committees to report on ways to lower health care premiums, allow patients to keep their current health plans, increase access to coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and decrease the price of medical liability lawsuits. In other words, the committees are beginning work on replacing the House-repealed Obamacare with Republican health policies.

Repeal got a lot of press coverage. Replacement got far less. If they needed any reminding, GOP lawmakers are learning that controlling the levers of power in the House doesn't mean controlling the media narrative on health care. "Democrats wanted to characterize repeal as draconian, ignoring the fact that we do have very, very positive alternatives," says Rep. David Dreier, chairman of the House Rules Committee. "It's been difficult for us to get that [message] out there. We said repeal and replace, and we're in the process of replacing."

House Republicans are pursuing a three-part strategy. Part One was repeal; they promised to do it, and they did it. Part Two is replace, which in coming months will involve House votes on a series of GOP health care measures. And Part Three -- since full repeal can't win in the Senate -- is another series of votes on measures to repeal individual parts of Obamacare. The net result will be that Republicans gradually push more and more House Democrats -- and perhaps some in the Senate -- away from an all-or-nothing defense of Obamacare.

When Democrats passed the national health care bill, many admitted that they didn't like this or that part, or that the bill as a whole wasn't "perfect." But after Obamacare became law, they balked at changing even the smallest part. For example, there is widespread agreement that the so-called 1099 provision -- the requirement that requires businesses to file zillions of new Internal Revenue Service forms -- is extremely burdensome. But when Republicans tried to kill the provision last year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made sure it didn't happen.

Now, after voters gave the GOP control of the House and a stronger voice in the Senate, things are different. Democrats are talking openly about changing Obamacare -- just as long as the changes stop short of full repeal. "Let us modify the health care law in a bipartisan way," House Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn told Fox News this week. "But this whole stuff of repeal and throwing it out and starting all over -- that's not going to happen."

Obamacare is filled with vulnerable provisions. In addition to the 1099, there's the individual mandate (which is also being challenged in court), cuts to Medicare, and the long-term care measure called the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, better known as the CLASS Act. During the Senate's Obamacare debate in December 2009, some Democrats voiced reservations about each of those provisions.

"Just look at the ones who made noise during the original debate," says a well-connected GOP Senate source. "Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad -- Conrad called the CLASS Act a Ponzi scheme, but he voted for the whole bill that included it. How would he vote on a separate bill to repeal it?"

We'll probably find out. In the next year and a half, Senate Democrats, including some who are facing tough re-election fights in 2012, could have a chance to vote again on the most troublesome parts of Obamacare. With 47 Republican senators, the GOP would need just four Democrats to reach majority support for repealing significant chunks of the health care law.

If that happens, Senate Democrats, who at this very moment are railing against Republican filibusters, would have to resort to -- you guessed it -- a filibuster to stop repeal of any part of Obamacare. Even if they do, Republicans believe they might muster 60 votes to win the day. And if key parts of Obamacare fall, it's not clear whether the whole structure can remain standing.

As those fights go on, House Republicans, with some Democratic help, will pass new measures to address the health care problem piece-by-piece. Some will be attractive to Senate Democrats facing re-election. "A lot of them come from states that are sympathetic to the message we heard last November 2," says David Dreier. "So in light of that, we're not going to give up on this."

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, center, speaks about the upcoming vote to repeal the health care bill, Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2011, on Capitol Hill in Washington. From left are, Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-N.Y., Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., Boehner, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of Calif., and Rep. Jeb Hensarling R-Texas. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Source: Washington Examiner

HC: Former Obama Supporter - Fed Up With Lies and Reversals on ObamaCare

A former Obama supporter. I'm just totally fed up with reversal after reversal and lie after lie from President Obama on health care.