I have to confess that life and work and life and work have taken over. Not to mention I am on a committee at the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo where I sell Half-Priced Carnival Ticket packs from January to February 27 to raise money for the HLSR Scholarship fund. And it has been KILLING me that I cannot sit down and blog. So much is going on–the Middle East, defunding of Obamacare, Wisconsin Scaredocrats running and hiding, but this article sent me into full blown head explosion mode.
Today, our Federal Government, led by a man who himself has stated is “very smart” has asked the Florida Federal Court to clarify its ruling on the Health Care legislation.
The Justice department is asking the question. Now who leads that department again?….
Ahhh yes, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder, an attorney himself, seems to be confused about the meaning of the Ruling. Let’s see if we here at MKCB can help the Justice Department. Consider it pro bono legal work for our Bankrupt Federal Government.
The Ruling States in part:
“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here,” Vinson wrote.
“While the individual mandate was clearly ‘necessary and essential’ to the act as drafted, it is not ‘necessary and essential’ to health care reform in general,” he continued. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.”
So let’s see if we can decipher this complex maze of words and phrases. The Judge is reluctant to conclude something about the bounds of authority…okay…and then he says Congress can address the problems of the health care system…okay…and then something about 1/6 of something…and then he says that the individual mandate (which is the requirement that we all purchase health care insurance) is really really important to the way the legislation was written…okay…and then he says “THE ENTIRE ACT MUST BE DECLARED VOID.”
“Void” what does that mean???? Does it mean that we can no longer call it “Obamacare” but we now have to call it “Void?”
Okay, let’s slow down. What does “entire” mean? According to Dictionary.com it means: “having all the parts or elements; whole; complete; full or thorough; not broken, mutilated or decayed; intact; unimpaired or undiminished; being wholly of one piece; undivided; continuous; not gelded (an entire horse).”
Whew–for a second I thought it had something to do with those wheely things on your car. So “entire” means the whole thing. Okay so far.
What about “declared?” It means: “publicly avowed or professed; self-confessed.” So, the whole act must be self-confessed or publicly avowed void? That is weird. I thought “declared” was like when you take the custard filling out of an eclair it has been “declared.” I see how these guys are so confused.
Kind of like this guy:
But I digress…
So now we come to the real problem with this ruling. The word “void.” That means: “having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable.” See that seems straight forward enough, but wait there’s more. It also means: “useless, ineffectual; devoid; destitute; without contents; empty; without an incumbent; having no cards in a suit; empty space; something experienced as a loss or privation; a gap or opening in a wall; a vacancy; invalidate or nullify; discharge; to clear or empty contents; to urinate or defecate.”
Well, I think we can sum up the entire ruling based on this definition.
“The entire Act must be declared void” can be further clarified to mean, “the whole act is self-confessed poop.”
Don’t thank me Mr. Holder, I’m just doing my part as a patriotic American.