Tag Archives: Unconstitutional

Stop the World! Obama’s “we can’t wait” student loan adjustment will save $4 to $8 per month

The monthly impact of the president’s new effort for most Americans paying off college debt will be between $4 and $8.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/obamas-student-loan-action-wont-have-much-impact/247411/

Even worse, he really is doing something he can’t do!  He is attempting to alter legislation and is way over-stepping his power.  This is a massive violation of the separation of powers, trying to legislate by executive order.  Isn’t that an impeachable offense?  “We can’t wait” to get this man out of office.  He is reckless and dangerous.

Posted:  10.27.11 @ 12:54 p.m.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Administration filed appeal in Obamacare case – two days early

Is it a secret?  I only found this one post on it.  It is finally an admission Obama lost the case.  Only losers appeal.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/08/did-obama-finally-accept-that-he-lost-the-obamacare-lawsuit/

Posted:  03.09.11

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Courts, health care, politics, President Barack Obama

Levin: Obama administration “lawless” in leading opposition to the U. S. Constitution

One U. S. District Court Judge, Judge Martin Feldman, has already declared the Obama Administration in Contempt of Court in the Gulf Drilling Moratorium in an Order dated February 2, 2011.

Are they now going to defy another Federal Judge, Judge Vinson, by continuing to implement an unconstitutional law, Obamacare.

Mark Levin on Wednesday:

Barack Obama today, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of HHS today, are conducting themselves in a lawless fashion. It is they, it is they who are leading opposition to the United States Constitution.

… Look at Page 75 (of the ruling). The judge said, “This is a declaratory judgment,” finding the entire statute unconstitutional, (saying in effect) “I don’t have to issue an injunction. The government can’t impose an unconstitutional statute on the nation.”

… What will the media in our country do when a President of the United States intentionally and knowingly refuses to comply with a court order? Whether it’s civil rights in the 1960s, whether it’s anything else, does this not remind you of Watergate in a sense if the Executive Branch does not comply with this federal judge? Do we not have a constitutional crisis if the Executive Branch refuses to comply with a Judicial Branch order?

… (the Executive Branch’s) only relief is to appeal it. You must cease and desist from further attempts to implement it. But I guarantee you, ladies and gentlemen, that the media in this country, which would call for the impeachment of a Republican president who openly defied a federal court order, and in fact did, will support this president because they believe in Obamacare and they want the result changed.

…..

… there is no Obamacare law officially. It’s been voided.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/02/04/mark-levin-barack-obama-the-attorney-general-the-secretary-of-hhs-are-conducting-themselves-in-a-lawless-fashion/

I hope these judges have good security.  One U. S. District Court Judge has already been gunned down.

Posted:  02.04.11

2 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Courts, Law, politics

Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by federal judge in Florida (exact wording linked)

Federal District Court Judge for the Northern District of Florida Roger Vinson rules Obamacare is unconstitutional and in favor of the 26 states that sued to block it.  Our great new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, passionately represented the State of Florida.  (She just said on Greta that there are two other states, Virginia and Oklahoma, who had separate lawsuits, making a total of 28 states suing.)

Pam Bondi, Attorney General, State of Florida

Judge Vinson says:

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate,” Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

I believe he is saying the entire law is unconstitutional.  I am looking for more on his wording.

Judge Roger Vinson

Bio:  On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins, Vinson was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1983 to a seat vacated by Lynn Higby as Higby assumed senior status. Vinson was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 4, 1983 on a senate vote and received commission on October 5, 1983. Vinson served as the chief judge from 1997 to 2004 before later assuming senior status on March 31, 2005.

U. S. Naval Academy, Lieutenant, aviator

Here we go: Click here for Full Order of Summary Judgment signed by Judge Vinson 01.31.11.

Excerpt:

“In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.

For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second
Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief…..

(There’s some additional wording in here.  See document)

In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.

DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2011.

/s/ Roger Vinson
ROGER VINSON
Senior United States District Judge
Case No.:  3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT

Posted:  01.31.11

UPDATE:  Even though the Court declined to enter an injunction, his ruling does, in fact, enjoin the government from further implementing Obamacare:

“It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the
federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.

(“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”)

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.”

His ruling declaring the law unconstitutional is a defacto injunction.  (This is according to Mark Levin and I believe he is right about this.  It’s pretty clear that’s how it reads.)  The judge struck down the entire law so there is no law to implement.  We’ll see.

So will the Obama administration adhere to the judge and cease implementation of the law until the Supreme Court can rule or defy the judicial branch of government?   Right now they are saying this ruling does not affect the implementation of the law.  The Court may have to further clarify this.

Update:  01.31.11

8 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, health care, politics

Dems using unconstitutional tricks to pass health care

“Let me be as clear as I know how.  If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War.  It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.” Mark Levin

Chris Van Hollen (D-MO) confirms to Chris Wallace that the “Slaughter Rule” will be used to avoid a vote on the Senate health care bill that was passed in the middle of the night by the Senate on December 24, 2009.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

And Robert Gibbs declares:

Gibbs added that those on next week’s Sunday talk shows “will be talking about healthcare not as a presidential proposal but I think as the law of the land.”

No yeas and nays.  Nobody to hold accountable.  Unconstitutional maneuvers.  Arrogance.  These people are corrupt.  You can’t “deem” a bill passed.

But the fight is not over:

RALLY – TUESDAY, MARCH 16TH – WASHINGTON, D. C. TO PROTEST THE BILL AND THE PROCEDURE

If they get away with this, what will be next?  I would think Democrats and Republicans alike would be concerned about this power grab.

See Michelle Malkin for a list of Blue Dog Democrats by state, with phone numbers or at Smart Girl Politics. Please call them.

Posted:  03.14.10

7 Comments

Filed under health care, politics, Uncategorized