After last Thursday’s release of the SCOTUS ruling on NFIB v. Sebelius, we’ve had a serious run through on the spin-cycle by all sides. Claims of Chief Justice John Roberts being a legal genius by both sides has gotten ridiculous. We’ve also had backflips by the White House and Nancy Pelosi about whether “what was in the Bill” was actually a tax or something else – a penalty. This is all nonsense. <\/p>\n
Seeing a great deal of obfuscation on both sides, as well as acknowledging the more than 2700 pages of legalese, there is only one conclusion I can draw – ObamaCare is void for vagueness. It is unworthy of enforcement.<\/p>\n
Void for vagueness is a legal principle which means that a law is judicially unenforceable because the average citizen can’t determine what person is regulated, conduct is being prohibited, or punishment being imposed.<\/p>\n
Currently the controversy sounding this particular act of legislation continues to play out in the media and if you have to be a legal scholar to understand the impact, or you need to set aside 3 months of your life to read the document, or if you can’t decide who is telling the truth between the 3 branches of government – then I’d say that the legislation is completely void for vagueness.<\/p>\n
One more thing – although we are taught in school that there are three branches of government, the real answer is there are four: legislative, executive and judicial, but all too often forgotten by those three: the people.<\/p>\n
We reserve the final say as to whether we uphold any law or ignore it.<\/p>\n
Those branches work for us – we don’t work for them.<\/p>\n
That point is long overdue to be reinforced to those who have forgotten who holds the power.<\/p>\n
We don’t elect leaders – we elect representatives.<\/p>\n
WE the people are the leaders.<\/p>\n
Update: 7 July 2012: Randy Barnett and Mark Levin – both legal scholars, have a go at explaining<\/a>\/counter explaining<\/a> the meaning of this legislation.<\/p>\n As a software developer for over 30 years, I have at least an inkling that I can comprehend some fairly complex ideas, but I’m dead serious when I say, the entire Robert’s opinion and all the legal chatter coming out of it seems like complete semantic hogwash, and it’s simply more evidence of a government which is relying on mass confusion to get it’s way. <\/p>\n I’m still fully convinced ObamaCare is void for vagueness. And the American people need to say as such.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When three branches of the federal government can’t agree what’s in a piece of legislation, it’s time for the people to reject their confusion outright. Upholding laws is incumbent upon the people, and if the law is unclear, then it should be considered void for vagueness – unworthy of enforcement. Continue reading