|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | Return to [[Critical Thinking]] | | Return to [[Critical Thinking]] |
| | | | |
| − | ==Premise List Model==
| + | [[Spring 2011 101 Reconstruction paragraphs from premise list | Reconstructions from premise list]] |
| − | | |
| − | *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/]
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | 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 constitution.
| |
| − | ::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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==1==
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the Heritage Foundation article, “Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal,” there were two different arguments presented within that brought the around to a single conclusion. The first set of ideas brought towards the conclusion, the author thought that Vinson agreed with the other judge on the constitutional violation of the individual mandate. The administration has its own language about the “severability” topic. Lastly for the first set the Congress permanently eliminated the “severability clause” from pre-drafts of the document. The problem lies in the fact that with the clause in place only a small part could be removed where it doesn’t affect the rest of the contract. The judge probably thought the law was bad enough he decided to take out the entire thing. Then the second set of the arguments was more about how different events have been affecting the law. A little over half of all the states challenged the law through the courts. All of the Republican senators are now going to repeal the law the House did first. Then with all of theses events happening within a relatively short period of time, which all contributed to the law being withdrawn.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==2==
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | In Conn Carroll’s article, “Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal,” Carroll concludes that Florida’s Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling on Obamacare demonstrates Vinson’s disapproval and distrust of the act and his ruling has been damaging to the law. Carroll, the author, breaks up this main conclusion into two categories: 1) Vinson’s ruling shows he distrusts the law and 2) that Vinson’s ruling greatly damaged the law. The author supports each claim with several premises. Because Vinson saw the law as falling outside of Congress’ “Necessary and proper” clause authority, he labeled it as unconstitutional thereby highlighting his distrust of the law. Also, because Vinson claimed that the mandate itself was unconstitutional and because there was not a severable clause within the law, the mandate thus made the entire law unconstitutional which, again, shows Vinson’s disapproval with the law. Furthermore, Judge Vinsion displays his disapproval and distrust of the law by relaying the Obama Administrations’ message of the necessity for the mandate with the rest of the law and by bringing up the issue of Congress intentionally removing a severability clause from an earlier draft of the same legislation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In support of his second claim, the author mentions the fact that since Vinson’s ruling, 26 states have moved against the law in opposition as well as 47 Republican Senators signing a bill to repeal it. Furthermore, Carroll points out that the House of Representatives has already repealed Obamacare once and that Vinson’s ruling of the entire act as unconstitutional has essentially stopped it in its tracks.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==3==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Carrol Reconstruction:
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the Heritage Foundation article “Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Reversal,” the author argues that Judge Vinson’s ruling on Obamacare is a necessary action. Two main arguments are given for this claim. First, the author claims that Judge Vinson’s ruling was justified, and second, that this ruling will be a blow to the law. The author constructs his first argument based on three main premises. First, Judge Vinson is in agreement with another judge that the individual mandate violated the constitution, implying that they might both be correct. Second, Vinson cites the administration’s own language about the severability issue, adding to the validity of his claim. Finally, Vinson notes that Congress intentionally removed the severability clause from an earlier draft of the legislation. This supports Vinson’s decision to invalidate the whole law because there is nothing preventing invalidating the entire law if no clause is requiring that only problematic portions of the law be removed. The second claim the author makes is that Vinson’s ruling will be a blow to the law. Many lawsuits are moving through the courts to challenge the law, including 26 of 50 states, which is extraordinary. The House has already repealed the law and all 47 Republican senators are prepared to do the same. Finally, the timing of the decision in relation to these events suggests it will contribute to the demise of the law.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==4==
| |
| − | | |
| − | The article "The Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal," states that Judge Vinson's ruling of the 'Obamacare" bill as unconstitutional was justified and will be a huge deterrent to its future. Carroll agrees with Vinson that the law is unconstitutional because it includes an individual mandate to purchase the insurance which violates freedom. Also, the administration's own language about the bill demonstrates a sevarability issue (a clause that was later removed showing it's issue). After this ruling, the bill will not be able to stand on its own due to the 2 law suits filed against it as well as the fact that 47 senators and the House have already made motions for repeal. The timing of this ruling, in light of recent political conversation, will also help to ensure that it will not be made into law.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==5==
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | In the article "Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal,” the author argues that Judge Vinson’s decision regarding the proposed health care law was not only justified but will also be a heavy blow to the law that it might not recover from. He explains why the decision was justified with three main arguments. First, he explains Vinson is in agreement with another judge who also believes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Next, he explains how Vinson’s argument is directly referencing the administration’s language in regards to the severability issue. Finally our author points out how earlier congress had already removed the severability clause from an earlier version of the proposed law.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Next we see the repercussions of Judge Vinson’s decision and how it will lead to the end of the law’s existence. Once again the author has three main points that prove this. First he explains how 26 of 50 states are involved in lawsuits that challenge the law, which is completely unheard of. Secondly he points out how the House has already repealed this law and 47 republican senators would love to continue this trend. Lastly the author brings it home by defining Judge Vinson’s decision as the final nail in the coffin that all these events were leading up to.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==6==
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the article “another victory on the road to repeal” in the Morning Bell, The health care bill is unconstitutional and on its way out. The author gives four main points in his or her article about how the bill is unconstitutional. One of which was that it falls outside of the Congress Commerce Claus’ authority and cannot be reconciled with the limited government of enumerated powers. The commerce Claus is trying to step outside of their powers and control things that are not meant to be under their control. Another is, the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The bill is not one that can be separated into different parts, like the democrats would like to, because it has too many provisions that are woven too tight together to separate. Along with that, the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire bill needs to declared void. Judge Vinson is on the mission to carry through on this task and is standing up for what he believes is right and constitutional. Seeing that the earlier version of the bill had such a Claus, and now congress has taken that part out intentionally, Vinson has jumped on that and is demanding that it be common knowledge. Vinson has now started something because many lawsuits are moving through the courts to challenge the law. Starting with his lead, the house has already repealed the law and all 47 republican senators are prepared to do the same. Starting with Vinson’s move to claim the bill is unconstitutional, the health care bill is on its way to becoming unconstitutional and on its way out of the system.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | ==7==
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the Heritage news blog entitled “Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal,” the author Conn Carroll argues that Judge Vinson’s ruling was both justified and will be a blow to the law. Carroll offers two main arguments for this claim. First, he explains that Vinson, in agreement with another Judge, believe that the individual mandate violates the constitution. He cites both the administration’s own language over the severability issue and the fact that Congress intentionally removed the severability clause from an earlier draft of the legislation. With the exclusion of a severability clause, the invalidation of the individual mandate is therefore an invalidation of the entire law.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Carroll also explains that many lawsuits including 26 of 50 states are challenging the law. On top of this, the House has already repealed the law and all 47 Republican senators are prepared to do the same. The timing of this decision in relation to these events suggests it will contribute to the demise of the law.
| |
