FLA. Judge Strikes Down Health Care Law

the judge has to be a conservative republican. and therein lies my objection to his ruling. it has to be based on his political beliefs rather than legality. typically the objection is forcing people to get insurance who don't want it, but when uninsured people go to the ER for treatment, the cost, borne by us is hugely expensive. right now, we don't have the right to opt out of income tax, social security, and medicare. if those things are not actionable, how is the healthcare law? also, it can't hurt for our government to force us to be a little compassionate, given the greedy, self-centered route we are traveling down.

I thought that the American constitution was fairly well known. I also assumed that there would be constitutional lawyers all over the place. Un-constitutional? Well someone has made a big boo-boo! Isn't it nice to know that your lawmakers are so educated?

Affordable my foot! I am one of those uninsured Americans that this bill was supposed to help, but back then I lived in New Jersey and most 'other' health plans were not available let alone affordable. Coupled with my having multiple sclerosis (noticeable to me but no one else), I'm often denied insurance. Forget affordable--it's always, Oh you have a preexisting condition! Guess what? I rarely go to the doctor, either the meds I'm prescribed are with $4 generic ones or stuff anyone can buy, or I just go without. I've learned to make due without health insurance. Benefits--are you kidding me? Why should I be forced to pay $350 or $400 a month for something I rarely use, just because I have a preexisting condition? STOP treating illegal immigrants as if they're citizens here in the US and taking away from a true-blue American like myself!!!

The ruling is very simple. The federal government does not have the power to mandate that people buy health insurance. It's not in the constitution and thus, per the 10th amendment, is a power reserved to the states or the people respectively. Can YOU find anything in the constitution that empowers them to set this mandate? So far not ONE judge has sided with Obama on this one.

I'm no Republican, but Judge Vinson was absolutely correct in striking it down. If the federal government REQUIRES me to purchase something, it breaches on my liberty. I believe affordable health insurance should be made available, but it shouldn't be required to have. Invalidate one portion of the Constitution, and the entirety of it is under threat. Now he didn't necessarily oppose the whole thing but advised that it needed to be reworked and the individual mandate removed. According to Vinson, the law is "outside Congress' Commerce Clause power and cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause" (Wall Street Journal). I would like to point out that Judge Vinson was the second federal judge to declare the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate unconstitutional. Tere are also 26 states who filed suit against the federal government in direct reaction to the Act. So when this does hit Supreme Court, it's going to be big. I only hope Obama revises the Act before things get incredibly ugly. Breaches on liberty have divided our nation before; I hope our government can learn from the past.

He struck down parts of it...not the whole thing. I have to admit that I do have a problem with the madate requiring people to buy insurance but I can also understand why it's there. I heard today that some courts have struck it down while others have upheld it so, clearly, this will wind up in the Supreme Court.

What is funny is how many on the left insist that the constitutionality of a law is up to the courts to decide. Now that the courts are deciding, the same people are saying the courts have no business deciding this. The Senators and House members who refused to let the Constitution get in the way of their corrupt dealings knew it was unconstitutional. They knew the numbers were changed after the CBO report came out, yet they still quote the old numbers (which means they know they are lying). Prs. Obama also knows this. Of course it's unconstitutional, and it was passed illegally... So how is it that the defenders of the swill can't actually use the language of the law to defend it?

Judge Vinson rules the present health care bill is unconstitutional and void.With out question the health care bill will go to the United States Supreme court.Judge Vinson pointed out some very interesting things in his note,read below!! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ 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. In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance. Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan. During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

"What are you views?" that it is unconstitutional.....*shrug* Don't know what else to add yet. I am sure this conversation will continue however, as I am sure you either feel it is constitutional or at least it is a cause worth violating the constitution for.

It is un-Constitutional. You should not have to buy something that you don't want. There was a point made today that was very valid. Health insurance can't guarantee quality of care. Nor can it guarantee that it will make things cheaper for everyone.

I think he's right to do so. Nowhere is the Federal Government given the option to insist every American person must purchase anything. To demand every person buys health insurance is totally unconstitutional. It is a privilege, not a right. With this insurance law they are taking away our free will. There are a lot of people who don't buy insurance because they want to spend their money on something else and it isn't always because they don't make enough. My nephew made $250,000 a year and never bought insurance. When he finally stopped working for himself, got married, and worked for a large company that offered it, he accepted. They even gave him pet health insurance as part of his job package. There may be 30 million without insurance, but it isn't necessarily because they can't afford it. Another problem with this package is that people who DO have insurance through their companies are losing it because paying the FINE is cheaper for the company than paying for the insurance. The companies are choosing the fines, which means the insurance is now costing the people what they paid before PLUS what the company was taking off their hands. Now they can't afford the insurance and are adding to the numbers who don't have it. And, in putting so much time into this package the first two years and ignoring millions losing their jobs AND insurance, even more are uninsured. It's a farce. The only problem with the judge's ruling was that he didn't send a paper saying STOP THE LAW NOW. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT FINE, BUT DO NOTHING UNTIL IT IS HEARD BY THE SUPREME COURT. Instead, our government is merrily continuing to spend money on something that should have been immediately halted when the ruling came out.

That is very welcome news; however it's just a baby step towards real victory.

Hooray! It is wrong to make a country built on personal freedom a law taking away ones right to choices with their health care.

...Hey there, Good old dependable verdict. No biggie as I understand it, if it stands, there will be "Medicare for all" which is much broader and I am quite sure the GOP will love that (not). There is supposed to be some kind of implied decoupling of the part that was a problem for the judge but to make big news he decided to make his friends happy as someone said and struck down the entire thing. In the mean time the implementations of the bill will go forward until 2012 when the appeals or whatever will get worked out, possibly going to the Supreme Court. See you there. Take it easy.

Great! Another stake through this demon's bloodsucking heart! Bravo, judge! Maggiepie “Vienes una tormente!” (A storm is coming!) ~ Prophetic warning to Sarah Connell ending the first ‘Terminator’ movie.