Court Orders are orders: Is Obama Administration already in contempt?
By Mike DeVine
February 02, 2011 Health: Insurance and Policy
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 Congress or We the 2012 Voting People will send him 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 or have his veto overriden, eliminating 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.
ALAN NOTE: the Governor of Alaska has already raised the question as to whether implementing Obamacare law is in conflict with his Oath of Office to defend/follow our Constitution, since Obamacare has been adjudged to be UN-Consititional by a Federal Judge and declared to be - all of it - without legal standing. Other governors and officials may need to ask themselves the same question.