« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Court Orders are orders: Is Obama Administration already in contempt?

Judge Roger Vinson’s “Order Granting Summary Judgment” to those seeking to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, became the law of the land upon its filing with the Clerk of Court for the Pensacola Division of the United State District Court for the Northern District of Florida on Monday, January 31, 2011.

Any Obama Administration act or omission in furtherance of the oxymoronically named “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” yesterday or today, would be in contempt of that order, much as the acts of Arkansas and Alabama governors refusing to de-segregate schools after Brown v. Board.

Presidents sent in the troops to enforce those orders against the states. Only Congress can force compliance with ending socialized medicine if President Barack Hussein Obama again insists on his rule over the rule of law. Again? Yes, Obama and his Energy Secretary Ken Salazar defied Federal District and Appeals Courts’ orders to end the post-BP Spill oil-drilling moratorium by issuing a “new” moratorium the day after the final order was issued.

The fear of retribution by the pitchfork-weilding autocratic Obama regime scared off all oil companies from asking the court to find Obama in contempt, cognizant that Obama isn’t shy about exercising broad (read: extra legal) discretion in interpreting his regulatory authority to buy companies, fire their managers and officers, threaten them with SEIU visits to their front lawns, and tell them what they must pay their employees.

We trust that Republican (and Democrats that don’t still fear being called a racist if they dare oppose the nation’s first black President) members have no such fears and will call on the President, TODAY, to:

Issue an Executive Order to all employees of the federal government to immediately cease and desist from all activity in furtherance of the implementation of all aspects of ObamaCare until and unless the issuing court or its Circuit Court of Appeals issues a stay of the current order pending appeal.

We the People only pay taxes (and borrow from China, etc) to pay for CONSTITUTIONAL activities by our employees, and that especially includes by its Chief Magistrate. President Nixon complied with court orders.

The Administration has the right to ask the court for a stay allowing them to enforce the law pending appeal. Some legal commentators breathlessly expounded on the absence of an injunction. But injunctions are issued before final orders. Final orders are final orders.

Should it be determined that Obama continues to direct employees of the federal government to continue to implement the now void health insurance law, any of the Plaintiff states, members of Congress and any insurance company or any citizen thus effected can and should ask Judge Vinson to find the Administration in Contempt. If Obama decides to “go all Andrew Jackson” and dare the court to enforce its order, then either a bi-partisan impeaching Congress or We the 2012 Voting People will send him packing on a Trail of Tears back to Chicago, sooner or later.

What about GOP legislative strategy in Congress in light of the ruling?

Whether or not a stay is issued, I think the GOP should abandon any piecemeal legislative strategy. For instance, should Congress pass and Obama sign a bill (or have his veto overridden)  that eliminates only the individual mandate, it could have the effect of rendering Judge Vinson’s Order void, and reinstate the remainder of the ObamaCare.

What of “severability”?

The law on severability is quite fluid. That there was or was not a severability clause dictates no particular ruling on same. I think there are good arguments on both sides, and after two more days of research, now think Judge Vinson has the better argument. More on that in a later column or in comments below if questioned.

What of a “constitutional crisis”?

We won’t have a crisis if Obama’s opponents follow the constitution. If Obama tries to play King, Congress and/or the Courts can use the Supreme Law of the Land. I would only define the possible scenarios as a crisis if Obama is allowed to defy court orders indefinitely because Congress doesn’t fight back.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Charlotte ObserverThe Minority Report and Examiner.com archives

www.devinelawvista.com


Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • pilgrim

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258639/wisconsin-ag-declares-obamacare-dead-brian-bolduc

    In light of Judge Roger Vinson?s ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional, Wisconsin?s attorney general, J. B. Van Hollen, has declared the Badger State free of any obligations imposed by the law.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Common_Cents
  • Flagstaff

    As in, “Good show, young man!”

  • usadying

    Also building construction to house all said bureaucrats.

  • Flagstaff

    “Whether or not a stay is issued, I think the GOP should abandon any piecemeal legislative strategy. For instance, should Congress pass and Obama sign or have his veto overridden, eliminating the individual mandate, it could have the effect of rendering Judge Vinson?s Order void, and reinstate the remainder of the ObamaCare.”

    Thanks for validating my own opinion reached by no assistance from a legal education.

    On a tangent, when the Supreme Court eventually affirms this correct decision should either of the two Judges who found the law constitutional ever be promoted, or should they even be encouraged to retire?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    is that we need to insist that all Obama bureaucrats hired sicne 2009 should be fired. Cutting the budget means FIRING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES!!!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • David123

    Pass any future health care laws starting with a clean slate, not on an unconstitutional foundation.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    You scooped the field once again. This my not just be Carter II but Clinton II. Obamacare money hay have a lot to do with the debt debate in a couple of weeks.

  • JSobieski

    We could pass some pro-HSA legislation that would be good on their own and would repeal parts of Obamacare should Obamacare survive.

    There is actually a decent shot that Obama would sign such a bill.

  • Scope

    has also stopped any implementation of Ocare, and has sent the million dollars they received for implementation purposes back to the feds. Unfortunately, DC based America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents 1,300 health plans is going ahead with implementation of Ocare.

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article1149004.ece

    Speaking about the complicit Health Insurance Companies, I read an interesting article that Judge Vinson also hit on “crony capitalism” with respect to the Health Insurers backing Ocare, thinking they would get a guaranteed number of new insureds, until the O finally put them out of business when he moved to complete government paid Socialized Healthcare. We’ve all seen drastically increased premiums, even before the law goes into affect. They could take their big bucks then, go sit on a beach somewhere, drinking their pina coladas, and watching the babes in bikinis go by, and never have to worry about pre-existing conditions again..

    Judge Vinson has done much more for all Americans than just voiding Ocare.

    Speaking of a defiant O admin., they are also defying Issa’s requests for information he needs to conduct his investigations, in particular with the FOIA request issue. GC, what happens if the admin. keeps defying everyone? What is the recourse other than waiting for new elections in 2012?

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    One way to “change the narrative” is to “follow the law.” Indeed, “following the law” should be what we do and that will create the narrative — we are a nation of laws, not of men. The court’s order striking down Obamacare is “the law of the land” at the moment and if we are a nation of laws, and not men, then that order must be obeyed by the other two branches.

    “We the People” of the Constitution must demand that our elected public servants obey the law. Thankfully, even some of our elected public servants, such as the Wisconsin and Florida Attorneys General, are doing so on their own.

    Thank you.

    For Liberty,

    ColdWarrior

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    is monumental given its timing. Conservatives, i.e. Americans that are informed and love this country, should be happy tonight.

  • izoneguy

    Let’s get those 2012 spots started against the Dem Senators that voted against repeal.
    They will have no where to hide and nothing to hide behind.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    repeal the whole bill, which odds went up so much thanks to Vinson, and given how critical health care is to the tipping point to Euro socialism that kills a nations spirit.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    After all, there’s nothing stopping the GOP Senate from doing this again, and again, and again: why rush to say “Nelson voted against repealing Obamacare” – when with a little patience you can say “Nelson voted SEVENTEEN TIMES against repealing Obamacare?”

    :)

  • Common_Cents

    We need to send a complete unambiguous message.

    Any compromise would be spun as a victory for Obama.

    Americans need crystal clear choices, clear separation.

    We’ve been too confused intentionally with multi issue bills etc….

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    They are amoral and lawless. They! Not just Obama.

  • gekster
  • JSobieski

    Compromise means giving on something.

    Pushing forward with legislation that is good and also helps to remove bricks from the foundation of Obamacare isn’t a compromise.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    we certainly should get the Dems on record with votes on all issues that reveal their Leftism as many times as possible.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    any add on healthcare bills and wouldn’t want any puny compromise on some small part of ObamaCare in exchange for HSA’s. We can’t add on to Healthcare cal until we clean the pallet, especially given the Florida ruling’s opening of a chance to get rid of ObamaCare NOW, or at least much earlier than 2013 with a GOP majority in both houses and the White House.

    Repeal, period, and then we’ll enact our plan. No add-ons.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • pilgrim
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The Government! hurl

    But I understand the spirit in which you suggested the job! and am flattered.

    I was told last week that I am “not coachable.”

    affirmative

  • pilgrim

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00009

    Lieberman and Warner did not vote

  • carolina

    McConnell has promised that he will force numerous votes against the health care reform law.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48730.html#ixzz1Cqnpuxl3

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • runner12

    watching and will follow the same path! We just elected a slew of Repubs across the board in our state.

  • Flagstaff

    I assume that it will have to go to the House, where it will pass.

    I don’t like it for tactical reasons, but I wouldn’t advise to vote against it.

    It WILL “add to the deficit,” though.

  • JSobieski

    for the purposes of enhancing HSA. Not giving up anything, but there are things that Obama could be enticed into signing.

    Just as many dems don’t realize that Obamacare is a trojan horse for Single Payor, Obama may not realize that HSAs are a trojan horse for capitalism.

    There are a couple of key regs that make HSAs go away in 2014. Excluding HSAs from the regs would be doable to do now.

    We could essentially create two health care systems, and use HSAs to discredit Obamacare. Ironically, we could use Obamacare as a hammer to transform our employer based system into a private account/employer provides the voucher system.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • JSobieski

    You can do things to advance our position without any compromises–i.e. giving up anything.

    HSAs could be the trojan horse for Obamacare in the same way that Obamacare is a trojan horse for single payer.

  • bobmontgomery

    81-17! Now, that’s just a little part of the bill, but the letter to Dem. Senators from Tea partiers should go something like “Dear Senator X, How in the world could so many Democrats reverse themselves on a part of the legislation that everyone said was “signature”, “historic”, “must have and must have now”? What else was in that bill that you didn’t read, Senator, that you are now regretting? The ‘individual mandate’? The ‘end-of-life counseling? Do we have to go on here, Senator? Vote for complete repeal, Senator. Your constituents are watching very, very closely.”

  • JSobieski

    http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/health-care-news/side-effects-obamacare-may-be-fatal-for-your-hsa/

    “But the worst news for those using HSAs is the provision requiring all policies to cover at least 60 percent of the actuarial value of the benefits offered. What?s the actual value? No one really knows?not until the Health and Human Services Department issues regulations on how to calculate it.

    Will contributions to HSAs be included in these actuarial-value calculations? HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will make that call. And if she rules ?no,? then high-deductible health plans including HSAs will no longer be viable? and you can kiss your plan good-bye.”

    (1) This is something that Obama could be convinced to sign
    (2) It means that HSAs won’t go away (the threat that they will go away impedes their effectiveness as a trojan horse).

    We could follow-up with some legislation to expand the use of high deductible policies/HSA, some tax incentives to encourage a transition from employer selected coverage plans to private accounts.

    We could also follow-up by trying to get high deductible plans outside the scope of HHS regulatory authority—a partial repeal if you will.

    Things we do to show alternatives to Obamacare will actually help us repeal Obamacare.

  • Common_Cents

    But I think at this time, we need to make a clear stand. America is confused. We need super clear choices.

    the risk of trojan horses is winning the battle but not the war. Look at how Clinton became the great economy “surplus” President? That is still doing long term damage.

    We do not want Obama to be the health care guru savior. It would take decades to undo.

  • JSobieski

    because they point out to the public that there are alternatives out there.

    For example, this article presents a great idea–the idea of repealing Obamacare regulations with respect to high deductible plans.

    It doesn’t cost anything to do this.

    The people who want those plans obviously want them.

    Obama would be on the defensive in terms of why something that is free and desired must nonetheless be illegal.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704462704575590344022699132.html

  • JSobieski

    Kennedy was a jerk, but he totally understood the concept of death by a million cuts and how directional improvement could a momentum all of its own.

    Not saying compromise in any way. I just disagree that targetted repeals/negations of Obamacare are compromises.

    People are asking for waivers on a bunch of stuff. I would suggest carving up permanent pieces out of Obamacare. The holes will help cause it to collapse, and while collapsing, it will be easier to repeal.

  • jdw4america

    on the vote.

    Mr. Schumer (yep, I’m from NY) and his fellow idiots actually insisted on voting against the repeal of a law that doesn’t exist anymore – a law which the American people still haven’t managed to love – how could that be? barry promised we would!

    I thanked him for making our job of removing democrats from Washington so much easier.

  • izoneguy

    should really make Harry & Obama pleased as punch.

  • Spiral

    Once you get both Republicans and Democrats voting to “mend it, don’t end it” (as some Democrats say), there might be less desire on the part of Republican congressmen and perhaps the public to repeal the whole thing.

    Still, I think keeping the issue in the public eye about all the problems with Obama-care is a good thing. And in the end, I think the bill is so bad, it really can’t be fixed. So, the issue will remain alive through 2012, no matter how many tweaks they manage between now and then.

  • carolina

    The 17 must be the true Socialists in the Senate.

  • JSobieski

    I just think that repealing pieces of Obamacare will actually help get rid of the entire thing. If we can create an Obamacare-free niche in the healthcare industry, that niche will grow and grow on its own volition. People will see what approach is superior. It also gives the R’s a chance to show what they are for. Its win-win-win.

  • JSobieski

    Its about freeing people from regulation (something Obama has given lip service to).

    Otherwise, what you are saying is that we can have nothing to say on healthcare for 2 years? If anything that isn’t repeal is a fix of Obamacare, we are holding ourselves hostage.

  • Flagstaff

    there is now just a little bit less reason to repeal the whole thing. (Assuming passage of the Senate bill. Since it affects tax receipts, I’m not sure it can originate in the Senate.)

  • Flagstaff

    That’s a point nobody wants to mention. But I agree that the starting place is anybody appointed by Obama.

    I attended a town hall meeting last night with my Congressman, Paul Gosar. He’s seriously asking for citizen input on how to tame this beast. I intend to give it my best shot. Firing Obama appointees will be small, and would probably happen anyway, but f we go back to the 2008 budget, it’s necessary. And we have to do what’s necessary.

    If anybody has good ideas you want me to include, just send them to me via email. This will be an ongoing project for me, so anytime is a good time.

  • Flagstaff

    Graham insist on adding the two words “and replace” to the operative word “repeal” every time he mentions it?

    Once a squish, always a squish.

  • lineholder

    with a bill that works, they leave the door open for liberals to try again.

    How true that actually is I don’t know. But it is something to consider.

    I do want to see the current legislation repealed. Don’t misread my comments on that matter.

  • gekster

    2nd nt

  • Flagstaff

    My preference is that it be repealed first, then individual issues that people really want and we can afford can be taken up in much smaller bills.

    IMHO, no bill should be longer than about 100 pages.

    It bugs me that he seems unable to just say “repeal.” Of course, HE bugs me, anyway.

  • lineholder

    bed mite that makes you itch in places you never knew you had.

    I’m not fond of him either. He straddles the fence constantly and you can never tell in advance on which side he’s going to land.

  • Flagstaff

    Mug on one side and wump on the other.

  • lineholder

    to get rid of the wump? At least he would be consistent…all mug.

    Then again, I can’t say much about Graham because my own Senator is Burr. And I thank you in advance for your sympathies.

  • carolina
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    1099 is the only thing that I think wise to repeal prior to letting the Florida case play out and/or voting only on total repeal for the reasons you suggest above.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    carry out the new and old laws. We have to go further and cut the budgets of all departments which means firing staff.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Alaska Gov. Parnell instructs his Attorney General to tell him whether carrying out any Obamacare “law” provisions would require him to violate his oath of office.

    Imagine that — an elected public servant actually thinking aloud about his Article V! oath “to support this Constitution” in the context of the Article VI restriction that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding.”

    Here’s the article, which is up on Drudge:

    http://newsok.com/alaska-gov.-enacting-health-care-may-violate-oath/article/3537879#ixzz1CwFwdw6i

    Thank you,

    ColdWarrior

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    If we put conservatives in the party positions that actually deal with nominations…

    Yes, as re Judge Vinson et al, it seems as if God’s Providence is at play, every bit as much as that fog that protected General Washington in 1776…

    more later

  • lineholder

    The increasing level of lawlessness has concerned me, and it has almost been like grieving over a lost loved one to see so many people actively following this lead and so few guarding against it.

    But there’s some evidence to indicate that this may be starting to change now. It brings me hope. Thank you.

    They should all be questioning it, every elected official and every active judge should be questioning this.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Because nobody with standing dared to take it to court? My God, has NO corporation any guts at all?

  • gekster

    Update on the global warming.
    via Drudge:

    Interesting article from:
    http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/environment/gas-and-electricity-affected-by-weather

    The headlines:
    Energy emergency updates, news releases
    Latest on the crisis from around New Mexico
    Updated: Thursday, 03 Feb 2011, 6:03 PM MST
    Published : Thursday, 03 Feb 2011, 11:02 AM MST

    NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – Gas and electric companies across New Mexico are encountering issues Thursday due to the extreme cold and increased demand for heat.

    excerpt:
    “Statewide emergency declared – Governor Susana Martinez announced today that she has signed two Executive Orders in response to extreme cold weather and natural gas outages across the state. The Governor has declared a State of Emergency in New Mexico and has also suspended regulations on the number of hours that propane suppliers may drive in order to more rapidly move liquid petroleum gas into and across the state.”

    2nd excerpt:
    “Natural Gas Emergency – Gas Companny of New Mexico: Due to rolling black outs in West Texas and other problems, the delivery of natural gas into New Mexico has been impeded. States in the southwest are experiencing similar issues. The New Mexico Gas ?Company pipeline system is intact and crews are working to minimize the impact of this temporary situation. Customers have experienced an interruption of service in several communities. These include: Tularosa, La Luz, Espanola, Taos, Questa, Red River, the town of Bernalillo, Placitas, Santa Clara Pueblo, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, Alamogordo, Silver City, and San Ildefonso Pueblo. NM Gas Co. has been working with National, County and State emergency services and officials, as well as local assistance agencies. Visit their website for a list of communities affected, a list of local emergency shelters, safety information and other up-to-date-information. The website will be continually updated as new information becomes available. ”

    Hows that Global Warming doing for ya.

  • bobmontgomery

    …When Joe Barton attempted to apologize to them for the way they were treated, he was denied a committee chairmanship. Everyone knows corporations are evil, including Republican leaders, and, apparently, big corporations admit to being evil , like GM, whose Chevrolet Division is donating your tax contributions to environmental groups to offset the pollution it admits will be generated by the million cars it wants you to buy. We live in a surreal world. Nothing is as it seems,; everything is upside down and the truth is not just stranger than fiction, it is a foreign concept.

  • bobmontgomery

    What does bad weather have to do with natural gas supply? I live in the midwest. We lose electrical power in storms all the time, but not natural gas. It is buried in pipes in the ground and it comes from Texas.

  • Flagstaff

    I meant the same people. I would say that it might be best to do it gradually, over a year’s time perhaps.

  • gekster

    from the article.
    Natural Gas Emergency – Gas Companny of New Mexico: Due to rolling black outs in West Texas and other problems, the delivery of natural gas into New Mexico has been impeded. States in the southwest are experiencing similar issues.

    The west Texas electrical grid is wind powered to a certain extent, T Boone Pickens idea.
    In cold weather, the wind turbines freeze.
    They quit spinning so uneven ice build-up wont throw of the balance and cause damage.
    They don’t produce electricity, and some times, to keep from freezing and causing more damage to them, they actually use electricity to heat them.
    The natural gas is pumped by electricity.
    Due to the cold weather, and the shut down of enough of these wind turbines, Texas has had rolling blackouts.
    Not enough electricity for homes in Texas, no electricity for pumping gas to New Mexico.
    A gas fired electric plant would have no such problems.
    If we didn’t put our faith in the unreliable, the reliable would be there.

    And they should have known better, a couple of years ago the wind stoped in west Texas for a period of time, and the whole grid shut down for 1/3 of the state, I think it was..
    Wind may blow, but wind turbines suck.

  • bobmontgomery

    ……the US strategic oil Reserves and replacing them with solar reserves and wind reserves was …..not a good idea?

  • Deskpilot

    Removing the 1099 provision of OC is like removing the cancerous fingernail from a dead person.
    Medical Analogy:
    OC is dead on the Operating Room table. Dr. Vinson declared it dead. It does not matter that a previous Dr.’s gave it a pedicure, and that two other Dr.’s said there was nothing wrong, and even more Dr.’s before that said, I’m not the going to see you. OC is dead, and NO ONE is lifting a finger to resurrect it.
    Now the GHOST of OC running around telling every TV camera it can find, saying, “I’m not really dead!” and all the minions who so desperately believed in OC, “”Just can’t believe it’s gone.” They continue to move on as though OC is still alive.
    TheDeath Certificate was signed by Vinson and published. Anyon who acts in the name of OC is committing FRAUD, identity theft, and exhibiting Contempot of Court.

  • Deskpilot

    Sen. Carper,

    In your posted statement of 2/2/2011, you state:
    “I’m disappointed that my Republican colleagues in the Senate attempted to roll back legislation that will protect consumers and provide Delawareans with better health care outcomes for less money….”

    [/Customized]
    Sen. Coons,

    In your posted statement of 2/2/2011, you state:
    ?Instead of working on bipartisan solutions to create jobs and grow our economy, today our attention was once again distracted by Republicans? symbolic attempt at repealing a law already at work improving people?s lives.”

    [/Customized]

    The House of Representatives voted on a matter of Public law at the time their vote was cast and tallied.
    You, sir, and all 99 of your colleagues, decided to take a vote on an matter whose effect as a matter of law has been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. At the time of YOUR vote, the ACA was NULL AND VOID.
    Forget whether you voted YEAH or NAY on the repeal amendment offered, ALL of you voted for something that DOES NOT EXIST.
    As the current status the ACA is NULL and VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it is your Constitutional responsibility to ensure that NO ACTION by any element of the federal government moves forward on ACA. No funding, no hiring, no building of facilities, not even the purchase of a single paperclip.
    Until such time as other judicial action is taken, either to reinstate ACA, or affirm is UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, it does not exist, and I urge you and your colleagues to challenge the Executive Branch and all of its various agencies to cease and desist from any matter relating to ACA, with the exception of the DOJ, who may only act before the courts of appeals.
    Any other action by any government actor should well be considered as acting in Contempt of Court.

    Sincerely,

  • rbdwiggins

    Not to diverge too far from the original context, but the Obama Administration has already been held in contempt.

    Judge Martin Feldman, Order & Reasons, February 2, 2011:

    Hornbeck Offshore Services, Versus Kenneth Lee ?Ken? Salazar, Et Al

    (Snip…)

    II.

    The plaintiffs? civil contempt claim focuses on the government?s imposition of a second blanket moratorium hurriedly on the heels of the first; plaintiffs argue that moratorium amounts to a flagrant and continuous disregard of the Court?s Order. But a finding of contempt of the preliminary injunction Order for that reason alone falls short. The plaintiffs read this Court?s preliminary injunction Order too broadly; that Order emerged from the Court?s finding that the plaintiffs were substantially likely to prove that the process leading to the first moratorium was arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. As an answer to the plaintiffs? quarrel with the second moratorium, the government maintains that it merely met the Court?s concerns and resolved each of the procedural deficiencies the Court found in the first.(3) Perhaps. Under these facts alone, then, the Court could not, at least not clearly and convincingly, find the government in contempt of the preliminary injunction Order. See Singh, 428 F.3d at 582 (finding standard not satisfied when district court simply expressed doubts about the sincerity of a party?s compliance with an injunction order).

    (3) The government?s answer, however, is diminished by the Secretary?s undisputed public statements of determination to ban deepwater drilling out of his concern for systemic dangers. These public statements were silent about addressing the Court?s Order.

    There is, however, more to the story. The plaintiffs also stress that the government did not simply reimpose a blanket moratorium; rather, each step the government took following the Court?s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance: the government failed to seek a remand; it continually reaffirmed its intention and resolve to restore the moratorium; it even notified operators that though a preliminary injunction had issued, they could quickly expect a new moratorium. Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government?s contempt of this Court?s preliminary injunction Order. To the extent the plaintiffs? motion asserts civil contempt based on the government?s determined disregard of this Court?s Order of preliminary injunction, it is GRANTED.

    III.

    The Court concludes that the plaintiffs have established the government?s civil contempt of its preliminary injunction Order by evidence “so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable the fact finder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts of the case.” Singh, 428 F.3d at 582. Thus, the Court need not reach the plaintiffs? secondary bad faith challenge.

    The issue of quantum shall be referred to Magistrate Judge Wilkinson.

    (Emphasis added, plus minor change in formatting.)

    Now, let’s see if Judge Vinson is willing to follow Judge Feldman’s lead.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    it took the process so long in NOLA and its federal circuit to make this ruling. It should have been made within days of Obama’s issuance of its replacement moratorium .

  • rbdwiggins

    is not tailored to the Obama Administration’s ideologically-driven, wanton disregard of the rule of law.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    allow ObamaCare to proceed pending appeal, and I am pretty sure he won’t, when Obama inevitably will have to ask for a stay, thus acknowledging that it is HE that needs an injunction, not the opponents, who have won the case.

    The GOP and states need to keep the pressure on, incl threatening to bring contempt charges if one envelope goes out with a stamp in furtherance of a law that is not loner the law.

    sweet ain’t it

  • http://www.timelyrenewed.com timelyrenewed

    Obamacare is only the tip of the iceberg. The underlying problem is the vast expansion of federal power based upon the Supreme Court’s vast expansion of the interstate commerce clause far beyond its original meaning. The only sure way to stop not only Obamacare but the innumerable other ways in which the federal government has expanded beyond the original scope of the Constitution is to reverse those Supreme Court cases (which date back to 1937) and restore the interstate commerce clause to its original meaning. Given how entrenched these Supreme Court precedents are, this will require a constitutional amendment restating the original, very limited scope of the interstate commerce clause. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

  • uselogic

    But it was a helluva line!

  • bobmontgomery

    One is to win the debate *when it first begins*, with debaters up to the task. Second is to just let it run it’s course to complete and utter failure. The first one went by about forty years ago. The second one likely would lead to millions of needless deaths. The third way is to “Just say no. Enough. No more.” To alll of it. It is Tenth Amendment time. Serious Tenth Amendment time.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I suspect that the main underlying problem is US, ie We the affluent People, as nature took its course over time.

    Because even a conservative view of the commerce clause would have allowed Big Govt and given the industrial revolution and our superpower status we will never have the luxury of going back to 1876 and start over.

    more later

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    but the ruling took so many months to come, ie an hour after I wrote this column!

    But yes, Obama has been held in contempt re the oil drilling moratorium!

    praise the lord

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • izoneguy

    http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

  • boonerdan

    States that choose to comply with any implementation steps are VIOLATING the judge’s ruling and therefore VIOLATING federal law. Those state officials would also be violating their oaths of office and open to impeachment at the state level.

    Take the fight to them in the states and make them decide which side they are on. At least one citizen from each state should file suit against their state for implementing any part of this unconstitutional DICTATE.

  • izoneguy

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine