Thread: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson confronts Obamacare!

See: Judge Says Obama Health Suit Will Probably Proceed
September 14, 2010, 4:52 PM EDT

[b][i]“A legal challenge to the health- care overhaul signed by President Barack Obama probably will be allowed to proceed, said a federal judge in Florida.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola said today he will make a decision by Oct. 14 on whether the states have jurisdiction to sue.

Sympathizing with the claims of the states, Vinson told lawyers he would probably dismiss part of the lawsuit, while allowing other claims to proceed.â€

johnwk, Thanks for the post. You are real good at getting to the crux of the given situation, whatever situation it might be. For that reason could I be so bold to ask, or suggest perhaps a post with some of your insight concerning Grand Jury indictments for those corrupt, pathetic, traitorous, varmits that some call politicians in the many areas of government?

As Americans begin to take back their government, should we not be educating ourselves as to the various methods that could be used to insure that the next bunch of pols be very weary when the gravy train comes to pick them up and give them a ride at the public expense?

Just thinking out loud........perhaps it is time to legalize hemp. We could bring back the hemp rope business. If such a business were to locate close to a market, such as Washington D.C. I would consider investing in stock of such a company.

Originally Posted by roundabout

johnwk, Thanks for the post. You are real good at getting to the crux of the given situation, whatever situation it might be. For that reason could I be so bold to ask, or suggest perhaps a post with some of your insight concerning Grand Jury indictments for those corrupt, pathetic, traitorous, varmits that some call politicians in the many areas of government?

Malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are very much in play under the guise of legislation. I have been working on what you ask, but must do a lot of research before posting on the issue.


Regards,

JWK

QUESTION!


Our Constitution states:

[b][i]“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which [u]a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.â€

What would be your first clue?

johnwk wrote,
[quote]Our Constitution states:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.â€

Originally Posted by roundabout

Now a question for you johnwk. Why do you ask such stirring and controversial questions?

One reason I ask these questions is because justice delayed is justice denied, and prolonging the question concerning the constitutionality of Obmamacare is an intentional and outright denial of justice.


JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (185

One reason I ask these questions is because justice delayed is justice denied, and prolonging the question concerning the constitutionality of Obmamacare is an intentional and outright denial of justice.

Thanks John for pointing this out.

Would also like to add this video on nullification presentation by Thomas Woods, as I feel it will fit well here.

http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignfor ... WkqBxf1pke

"“The states are left almost powerless to affect Congress,â€

Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 81 confirms the Obamacare case ought to have been originally filed in supreme Court and not district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:


Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.


I still can’t figure out why the State AG’s are prolonging the case by arguing it in the District Court which allows major portions of Obamacare to take effect, creating an irreversible situation, before the case finally gets to the Supreme Court where the case ought to have been filed in the first instance!

It is also surprising that, to the best of my knowledge, the State AGs have not file for an injunction to prevent the implementation of Obamacare and preempt an irreversible situation when the case finally gets to the Supreme Court. The more I think about it, the more I’m beginning to believe there is something foul in the making.


JWK