Friday, February 18, 2011

Yeah, But...

When is a law not a law? Apparently when the Bamster wants it to be.

We've had four court decisions in response to state attorney general suits which challenge the constitutionality of the Obamacare provision requiring citizens to purchase insurance. Two dismissed on technical grounds and two upheld the state challenges and declared the provision unconstitutional.

Of the two that ruled on the question, the first addressed only the legality of the mandate itself. The second and more recent ruling reviewed the entire law and noting the lack of a severability clause concluded that the entire bloody act was beyond the authority of the Congress. The entire package is unconstitutional.

Now, I stumbled over this when I read it in the morning Fishwrapper, but apparently others have noted the incongruity as well:

Yer Honor, Please Tell Them to Comply With The Undone Law

How do you do that? What part of null and void am I missing? So, is this like slavery being unconstitutional, but I don't have to abide by that?

So let it be written, so let it be done because the Messiah directs it.

1 comment:

Anna said...

I seem to remember Andrew Jackson saying, of a Supreme Court ruling, then they can enforce it. It seems Democrats only repect things where there is force invovled.

So naturally, unless the Romanians are rising up; Obama will keep doing what he wants whilst ignoring the peaceful disagreement of voters. This does not bode well.