Difference between revisions of "RECONFEB22011"
(Created page with '*Editorial Board, "Judicial Activitism on Health Reform," The New York Times, February 2, 2011 [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/opinion/02wed2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion] If that l…') |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
P: Congress might have passed the law without the mandate. | P: Congress might have passed the law without the mandate. | ||
P: The other judge said he couldn't determine Congressional intent on this issue. | P: The other judge said he couldn't determine Congressional intent on this issue. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Conn Carroll, "Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal," The Foundry: Conservative Policy News, Heritage Foundation, Februrary 1, 2011 [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/01/morning-bell-another-victory-on-the-road-to-repeal-3/] | ||
| + | |||
| + | quote from decision: Can't penalize failure to engage in commerce (buy health insurance) under commerce clause. | ||
| + | |||
| + | GC: Judge Vinson's ruling was justified(A) and will be a blow to the law(B). | ||
| + | |||
| + | A | ||
| + | P: Vinson is in agreement with another judge that the individual mandate violated the constiution. | ||
| + | |||
| + | P: Vinson cites the adminstration's own language about the severability issue. | ||
| + | P: Congress intentionally removed the severability clause from an earlier draft of the legislation. | ||
| + | (Note: In writing this up you need to show how the severability issue supports the judge's decision to invalidate the whole law.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | B | ||
| + | P: Many lawsuits are moving through the courts to challenge the law, including 26 of 50 states, which is extraordinary. | ||
| + | P: The House already repealled the law and all 47 Republican senators are prepared to do the same. | ||
| + | P: The timing of the decision in relation to these events suggest it will contribute to the demise of the law. | ||
Revision as of 18:12, 9 February 2011
- Editorial Board, "Judicial Activitism on Health Reform," The New York Times, February 2, 2011 [1] If that link doesn't work click here.
GC: Judge Vinson's ruling on Obama's Health Care law is judicial activism.
P: While one other judge overruled a portion of the law and two other upheld it, no one has invalidated the whole law based just because one portion being invalid. P: There is a tradition that courts eliminate only problematic parts of a law, not the whole thing. P: Judges that violate this tradition can be considered "judicial activists".
Counter argument (from judge's decison):
- C: Invalidating the whole law was justified.
- P: The lack of a severability clause in the legislation implied that Congress meant that the individual mandate was crucial to the law.
- P: The law won't work without the individual mandate.
IC: The judge's defense of his decision is flaw. P: Congress might have passed the law without the mandate. P: The other judge said he couldn't determine Congressional intent on this issue.
- Conn Carroll, "Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal," The Foundry: Conservative Policy News, Heritage Foundation, Februrary 1, 2011 [2]
quote from decision: Can't penalize failure to engage in commerce (buy health insurance) under commerce clause.
GC: Judge Vinson's ruling was justified(A) and will be a blow to the law(B).
A P: Vinson is in agreement with another judge that the individual mandate violated the constiution.
P: Vinson cites the adminstration's own language about the severability issue. P: Congress intentionally removed the severability clause from an earlier draft of the legislation. (Note: In writing this up you need to show how the severability issue supports the judge's decision to invalidate the whole law.)
B P: Many lawsuits are moving through the courts to challenge the law, including 26 of 50 states, which is extraordinary. P: The House already repealled the law and all 47 Republican senators are prepared to do the same. P: The timing of the decision in relation to these events suggest it will contribute to the demise of the law.
