ObamaCare: UNCONSTITUTIONAL !

Read Judge Vinson's opinion here. it is brilliant, and plainly enough written so that a layman (like me!)can comprehend the judge's points well enough without necessarily being familiar with the judicial precedents being referenced.



I just love this part, where the judge throws Obama's words (and the Democrats in both houses) right back in his face - Page 68:



Moreover, the defendants have conceded that the Act’s health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself. The health insurance reform provisions were cited repeatedly during the health care debate, and they were instrumental in passing the Act. In speech after speech President Obama emphasized that the legislative goal was “health insurance reform” and stressed how important it was that Congress fundamentally reform how health insurance companies do business, and “protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry.” See, for example, Remarks of President Obama, The State of the Union, delivered Jan. 27, 2009.28



(See also, e.g., The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, OfficialTranscript of President Obama’s News Conference, July 22, 2009, available at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/news-conference-president-july-22-20

09; The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Official Transcript of President

Obama’s Remarks at Health Care Reform Town Hall, July 23, 2009, available at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Health-)



Meanwhile,the Act’s supporters in the Senate and House similarly spoke repeatedly and often of the legislative efforts as being the means to comprehensively reform the health insurance industry.

To be sure, the words “protection” and “affordable” in the title of the Act

itself are inextricably tied to the health insurance reform provisions (and the

individual mandate in particular), as the defendants have emphasized throughout the course of this litigation.



Love this analogy as well:



In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch,and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions --- which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort --- for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress’ main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” not “The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act.” The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker.



Amen, your Honor. Amen.