Con_Alma;600688 wrote:The question I have relates to the degree of impact. If a single provision of legislation is deemed unconstitutional does it nullify the the entire law?

The "severability" of the provision is one of the issues in dispute. I believe the judge yesterday ruled that (1) the mandatory coverage provision stretched the Commerce Clause too far, but (2) the provision was severable from the rest of the law. In other words, that one mandate would be gone, but the rest of the statute would stay in effect.

This is, of course, a matter of great dispute and will be raised on appeal.

I can see how it will seek to be exploited. Thanks for your input.

Con_Alma;600709 wrote:I can see how it will seek to be exploited. Thanks for your input.

The severability of portions of laws is always a big issue, and it's constantly a question whether invalidating one portion removes the entire law, or whether the rest of the law can be constitutional if you cut out just one part. I am not particularly familiar with the healthcare law issues here, but my understanding is that it isn't clear that invalidating this one provision nullifies the entire law. With most major pieces of legislation, my understanding is that cutting out one section generally doesn't affect the rest of the law. I guess we'll find out how it plays out here.

Not having any legal background I would think that it should depend on the potential impact, if any, on the other areas of said law. With the thousands of pages of this law there's probably going to be some "stretching" of interpretation involved.

The way the process typically works is that Congress will pass a law, then delegate to an agency the requirement to draft regulations to interpret the nuances of the law. E.g., Congress says, "We should have a post office, and it should deliver mail to people." Then the Post Office creates regulations to govern when it will deliver mail, how much it will charge, where the post offices will be, etc. Most of the major interpretation is done at the agency level, and agencies have wide latitude to exercise discretion to implement the law. Most challenges arise when someone thinks the agency misinterpreted a particular law or didn't enforce it well, etc.

It's significantly less common to challenge the law itself (or some portion of it) as being unconstitutional.

My point was if the Supreme Court rules that a portion of the law is unconstitutional and by severing it from the law it impacts another part of the law, would it create an avenue whereby it could be argued that the entire law be stricken as unenforceable? ...kind of a domino effect.

^^^

As a corollary, this is why you don't see a lot of legal alerts from major law firms regarding the two biggest pieces of legislation in recent history (healthcare and Dodd-Frank) - ultimately there isn't much to say, other than "well, X agency is authorized to provide Y regulations regarding Z" which clients don't find useful. I tried to read many top firms' reports about Dodd-Frank and find it to be a better sleep inducing drug than Nyquil.

Here's a good discussion of the decision that addresses many of the questions in this thread:

link

CenterBHSFan;599952 wrote:Bet President Obama is now regretting casting aspersions toward the SC earlier this year LOL!

+1 for word usage
+1 for your point

The reference that I was talking about earlier, and Tobias alluded to, is this:

[video=youtube;k92SerxLWtc][/video]

I bet this rememberance has flickered across his mind at least once since then lol

If the Supreme Court even thinks about what Obama said during his State of the Union in its review of any case, then it shows that they are not impartial and not fit to serve. Justice is supposed to be blind, and I would hope that our top jurists can separate personal feelings from their professional duties. If any of them cannot do so, they should step down.

stlouiedipalma;601527 wrote:If the Supreme Court even thinks about what Obama said during his State of the Union in its review of any case, then it shows that they are not impartial and not fit to serve. Justice is supposed to be blind, and I would hope that our top jurists can separate personal feelings from their professional duties. If any of them cannot do so, they should step down.

I agree. The thing is the SCOTUS is made up of human beings. They are not infallible "gods". As some may claim. They have played an equal role in the federal government's failing at times to maintain just and equal treatment of individuals under its jurisdiction, just like the other two branches.

The SCOTUS has been just as guilty of trampling the Constitution as the other co-equal branches through out our history. Somehow today they are now anointed the sole infallible "gods" of it. Baffles my mind. I am no fan of most of Obama's political ideology. Nor do I agree with most of his decisions he has made within his authority over the executive branch.

Kudos to him for having the balls to "call out" and challenge one of the other co-equal branches of the federal government for a decision he as chief of the executive branch disagrees with. Though I agreed with the decision of the SCOTUS he made reference to, and disagreed with Obama totally on this issue. I could not help but see the founders vision of 3 co-equal branches and one butting its head against another as a good thing. What better venue than the state of the union to do so.

tk421;600369 wrote: I can't believe some people don't understand that. Does the federal government have the power to penalize Americans for not buying a GM vehicle? Would Americans not complain if the government tried? What about not buying a house? It's the same thing with health insurance, they can't penalize you for not engaging in commerce. Pretty simple to understand.

Those who believe the government should control every aspect of our lives absolutely understand this...they just don't care.

Please explain something to me. Let's say every state in the union has a federal judge make a ruling on Obamacare. The final tally says 30 judges rule it is against the Constitution and 20 do not. Now it goes to the SCOTUS and they rule it does not violate the Constitution. So what's the verdict. If the SCOTUS has final ruling, what's the point of letting it run its course?

Def Leopard;603024 wrote:Please explain something to me. Let's say every state in the union has a federal judge make a ruling on Obamacare. The final tally says 30 judges rule it is against the Constitution and 20 do not. Now it goes to the SCOTUS and they rule it does not violate the Constitution. So what's the verdict. If the SCOTUS has final ruling, what's the point of letting it run its course?

There won't be 50 separate opinions. Cases will be consolidated. Other states will sit back and let others challenge the law. In relatively short order, it will go to SCOTUS, where the key contested issues will be decided. At that point, everyone will follow SCOTUS' ruling.

SCOTUS has the final say on everything. Would you propose having every case that could be raised elsewhere immediately go to SCOTUS for determination? Or only the important ones? And who gets to decide what is important enough? And what is the threshold level for being important enough to trump the constitution? Isn't it problematic to determine that for issues we really care about, it's fine to skirt the constitution and do what you think best?

And who gets to decide what is important enough? And what is the threshold level for being important enough to trump the constitution? Isn't it problematic to determine that for issues we really care about, it's fine to skirt the constitution and do what you think best?[/QUOTE]

Isn't this what our government does everyday?

Def Leopard;603068 wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:And who gets to decide what is important enough? And what is the threshold level for being important enough to trump the constitution? Isn't it problematic to determine that for issues we really care about, it's fine to skirt the constitution and do what you think best?

Isn't this what our government does everyday?

Not that I know of.

^^^^
Open your freaking eyes, didn't the Virginia federal judge just rule Obamacare is unconstitutional?

Def Leopard;603129 wrote:^^^^
Open your freaking eyes, didn't the Virginia federal judge just rule Obamacare is unconstitutional?

Yes, what's your point? The Constitution established a system by which we could ensure that proposed laws comply with the Constitution. That system is working. As I understand it, you propose to break the system (by going straight to SCOTUS) to confirm that a provision breaks the system because it strikes you as really important. Is that a correct understanding of what you're proposing?

That seems a little odd to me. The court system is working correctly on this, and it will run its course. Why the need to hurry and eviscerate constitutional processes when the major provisions aren't implemented until 2014? There's no need to create a one-time exception to rush this, other than perhaps for short-term political gain.

I don't like the new healthcare law, and I hope that it will be struck down. But I don't see much reason to declare sacred whatever issue is politically important at the moment so that we can skirt due process and constitutional requirements. The system is working, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it.

fan_from_texas;603140 wrote:Yes, what's your point? The Constitution established a system by which we could ensure that proposed laws comply with the Constitution. That system is working. As I understand it, you propose to break the system (by going straight to SCOTUS) to confirm that a provision breaks the system because it strikes you as really important. Is that a correct understanding of what you're proposing?

That seems a little odd to me. The court system is working correctly on this, and it will run its course. Why the need to hurry and eviscerate constitutional processes when the major provisions aren't implemented until 2014? There's no need to create a one-time exception to rush this, other than perhaps for short-term political gain.

I don't like the new healthcare law, and I hope that it will be struck down. But I don't see much reason to declare sacred whatever issue is politically important at the moment so that we can skirt due process and constitutional requirements. The system is working, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it.

I think something alot of these people on here celebrating that "Obamacare" has been defeated need to realize that only one part if the bill was ruled on,not the whole thing

fan_from_texas;603140 wrote:Yes, what's your point? The Constitution established a system by which we could ensure that proposed laws comply with the Constitution. That system is working. As I understand it, you propose to break the system (by going straight to SCOTUS) to confirm that a provision breaks the system because it strikes you as really important. Is that a correct understanding of what you're proposing?

That seems a little odd to me. The court system is working correctly on this, and it will run its course. Why the need to hurry and eviscerate constitutional processes when the major provisions aren't implemented until 2014? There's no need to create a one-time exception to rush this, other than perhaps for short-term political gain.

I don't like the new healthcare law, and I hope that it will be struck down. But I don't see much reason to declare sacred whatever issue is politically important at the moment so that we can skirt due process and constitutional requirements. The system is working, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it.

It is bound to end up at the SCOTUS, so why waste time and money, put it before the court and let them decide on it. Give me all the lawyer speak you care to, bottom line "running its course" is just another way of saying milking the system. But then again time is money isn't it.

Def Leopard;603198 wrote:It is bound to end up at the SCOTUS, so why waste time and money, put it before the court and let them decide on it.

Did you bother reading anything that I posted? We have this document called the "Constitution" that tells us how we run our courts. It makes sure people are treated fairly. It doesn't contain an exception that says, "You can disregard the court system if an issue is really important." The case will make it to SCOTUS soon enough. This isn't an important enough issue to justify abrogating the Constitution, even assuming there is an issue important enough to do so, for all the reasons I noted above.

Give me all the lawyer speak you care to, bottom line "running its course" is just another way of saying milking the system. But then again time is money isn't it.

Lawyer-speak? Milking the system? Are you dense? Our laws say, "To deal with an issue, you have to take steps A, B, and C." What you're saying is, "If this will end up at C anyway, let's just skip A&B." I'm saying, "If we're going to make an exception for this issue, what standard do we use in the future to decide when it's okay to ignore the constitution and when we actually have to follow it?" I'm pointing out that (1) there are practical problems with skipping through the court process and (2) there isn't likely to be much time/money saved anyway because the bulk of the outside counsel costs (to the extent that any exist) will be incurred at the SCOTUS level anyway.

Other than saying that you're upset and you think all this talk about courts and laws is "lawyer speak," you haven't done much to advance the argument that we should ignore our rules and make this one an exception.

Ty Webb;603192 wrote:I think something alot of these people on here celebrating that "Obamacare" has been defeated need to realize that only one part if the bill was ruled on,not the whole thing

Oh I think most on here understand that just fine. We're just hoping when the Supremes make their ruling, they decide that if one section is unconstitutional, the whole thing is. This might "only" be a first step, but it's a damn important one.

Writerbuckeye;603271 wrote:Oh I think most on here understand that just fine. We're just hoping when the Supremes make their ruling, they decide that if one section is unconstitutional, the whole thing is. This might "only" be a first step, but it's a damn important one.

They will never overturn the whole bill

Every SCOTUS justice took an oath that they will not legislate from the bench,which is exactly what they will be doing if they overturn the whole bill. If they do that,we might as well get rid of the SCOTUS

Ty Webb;603435 wrote:They will never overturn the whole bill

Every SCOTUS justice took an oath that they will not legislate from the bench,which is exactly what they will be doing if they overturn the whole bill. If they do that,we might as well get rid of the SCOTUS

See the posts above that talk about how if one aspect of the bill is unconstitutional, jurists may reasonably find the whole bill is unconstitutional.

Fact of the matter is that this bill sort of hinges on this one critical part (mandating everyone buy in) or it doesn't really work, does it? What's the point of creating a bill that purports to cover almost everyone if ANYONE can opt out? My hope is the jurists see it this way and throw the whole thing into the "trash" where it belongs.