If govt doesn't file for stay of Obamacare-Unconst ruling,are they in contempt of Ct?

[Little-Acorn]

The District Court in Florida has declared that ALL of Obamacare is unconstitutional, and is void.

The govt can now apply (maybe to an appeals court) for a quick stay of the District Court's ruling, so they can keep implementing Obamacare while the cases work their way up to the Supremes.

If they don't file for that stay, but keep implementing the present parts of Obamacare (say, they keep forcing people to keep 25-year-old "children" on their policies against the policyholder's desires, for example)... does that mean the Obama administration is operating in contempt of the court?

Can Judge Vinson then find that the administration official(s) responsible for forcing people to let the 25-yr-olds stay on their policies, is in contempt of his clear order throwing out Obamacare... and throw that official(s) in jail for contempt of court?

...all the way up to the top?

 

[BigRob]

Re: If govt doesn't file for stay of Obamacare-Unconst ruling,are they in contempt of

The District Court in Florida has declared that ALL of Obamacare is unconstitutional, and is void.

The govt can now apply (maybe to an appeals court) for a quick stay of the District Court's ruling, so they can keep implementing Obamacare while the cases work their way up to the Supremes.

If they don't file for that stay, but keep implementing the present parts of Obamacare (say, they keep forcing people to keep 25-year-old "children" on their policies against the policyholder's desires, for example)... does that mean the Obama administration is operating in contempt of the court?

Can Judge Vinson then find that the administration official(s) responsible for forcing people to let the 25-yr-olds stay on their policies, is in contempt of his clear order throwing out Obamacare... and throw that official(s) in jail for contempt of court?

...all the way up to the top?

No... Judge Vinson did not issue an injunction to block implementation of the law, and therefore it will continue pending appeal.

Let us not forget that what the district courts say on this matter is mostly irrelevant (I think it is now 2-2 in terms of how rulings have gone) and it will have to be the Supreme Court to finally decide.

 

[dogtowner]

Re: If govt doesn't file for stay of Obamacare-Unconst ruling,are they in contempt of

The best we can hope for at this point is that this process gets expedited. I think that's reasonable given the import.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Re: If govt doesn't file for stay of Obamacare-Unconst ruling,are they in contempt of

No... Judge Vinson did not issue an injunction to block implementation of the law, and therefore it will continue pending appeal.

I'm afraid that's not so. See Judge Vinson's words from his ruling, below:

--------------------------------------------

http://market-ticker.org/

Health Care Unconstitutional: Obama Sedition?
Posted 2011-02-01 11:17 by Karl Denninger

Yes, that's a strong word.

It may also be appropriate.

The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.

So now we have a White House that has declared its intent to ignore a declaratory judgment.

The Administration has no right to do this.

Obama's White House has exactly two options:

* Comply with the ruling. This means that any and all activity authorized or mandated by the Statute cease now.

* File an appeal and ask for a stay pending its hearing. If said stay is granted, then the ruling is held pending consideration.

That's it.

Folks, this is clear. The Judge in question, Judge Vinson, in fact sets forth exactly this in the opinion:

(5) Injunction

The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. 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.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“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”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

Except in this case The White House has now declared its intent to intentionally disobey 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.

Well, as of today, there is such a reason to so conclude.

The Plaintiffs need to make their way back to court this morning and file an emergency request for both an injunction and a citation of contempt of court against the members of The Obama Administration, including President Obama personally, Kathleen Sebelius and The Internal Revenue Service, all of which are staffing up for and acting as if this law remains in full force and effect.

This is now a full-blown Constitutional Crisis. The Executive's willful, intentional and publicly-stated refusal to honor a declaratory judgment is an open act of willful and intentional violation of The Separation of Powers in The Constitution and, if combined with the use of or threat of use of force as is always present when government coercion is employed, treads awfully close to the line, and may cross it, of 18 USC Ch 115 Sec 2384, to wit:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The exercise of power by the Executive and Judicial branch, under which the Internal Revenue and Health and Human Services operate, inherently constitutes the use of force.

When such is used to "prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of The United States" the parties that have done so, it can be argued, have engaged in a Seditious Conspiracy.

Unless the Obama Administration either stands down now or files an appeal and seeks a stay and stands down until said stay is granted, if it is, then they have indeed crossed the line.

The statement from The Obama Administration is a declaration that he is not a President, but rather a King and he arrogates to himself a "divine right." The willful and intentional refusal of an organ of government to abide a lawful decision of a court of competent jurisdiction is a declaration of tyranny and lawlessness.

 

[BigRob]

Re: If govt doesn't file for stay of Obamacare-Unconst ruling,are they in contempt of

I'm afraid that's not so. See Judge Vinson's words from his ruling, below:

--------------------------------------------

http://market-ticker.org/

Health Care Unconstitutional: Obama Sedition?
Posted 2011-02-01 11:17 by Karl Denninger

Yes, that's a strong word.

It may also be appropriate.

So now we have a White House that has declared its intent to ignore a declaratory judgment.

The Administration has no right to do this.

Obama's White House has exactly two options:

* Comply with the ruling. This means that any and all activity authorized or mandated by the Statute cease now.

* File an appeal and ask for a stay pending its hearing. If said stay is granted, then the ruling is held pending consideration.

That's it.

Folks, this is clear. The Judge in question, Judge Vinson, in fact sets forth exactly this in the opinion:




Except in this case The White House has now declared its intent to intentionally disobey the law as declared by the court.




Well, as of today, there is such a reason to so conclude.

The Plaintiffs need to make their way back to court this morning and file an emergency request for both an injunction and a citation of contempt of court against the members of The Obama Administration, including President Obama personally, Kathleen Sebelius and The Internal Revenue Service, all of which are staffing up for and acting as if this law remains in full force and effect.

This is now a full-blown Constitutional Crisis. The Executive's willful, intentional and publicly-stated refusal to honor a declaratory judgment is an open act of willful and intentional violation of The Separation of Powers in The Constitution and, if combined with the use of or threat of use of force as is always present when government coercion is employed, treads awfully close to the line, and may cross it, of 18 USC Ch 115 Sec 2384, to wit:




The exercise of power by the Executive and Judicial branch, under which the Internal Revenue and Health and Human Services operate, inherently constitutes the use of force.

When such is used to "prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of The United States" the parties that have done so, it can be argued, have engaged in a Seditious Conspiracy.

Unless the Obama Administration either stands down now or files an appeal and seeks a stay and stands down until said stay is granted, if it is, then they have indeed crossed the line.

The statement from The Obama Administration is a declaration that he is not a President, but rather a King and he arrogates to himself a "divine right." The willful and intentional refusal of an organ of government to abide a lawful decision of a court of competent jurisdiction is a declaration of tyranny and lawlessness.

This is all a nice and fine argument, but it won't be applied in the manner in which you are advocating.

David Engstrom, a Stanford Law School faculty member explains. "The issue that the court has ruled on has been specifically contradicted by two other district courts," he said. "So, the idea that the Obama administration should somehow stand down from implementing the act, based on a fourth district court, doesn't have any basis in law."

Additionally, even if you were to agree 100% with your argument, it would only apply to the 26 states that are party to the dispute. (I would need to double check that however)

Additionally, there are many cases in which various courts interpret and apply laws differently, thus resulting in circuit splits...and the Supreme Court has to settle those, but it does not make the actions of one court illegal just because another court says so.

Obamacare is not going to not be implemented until the Supreme Court says so.