Judge  Roger Vinson, a Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, has determined that ―The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act‖ (―the Act‖) is unconstitutional.1  Judge Vinson begins his opinion by reiterating the importance of the federalist system.  In framing the question before the  court, Vinson emphasized that this question is not necessarily about the health care system, but about the  federalist system and the ―very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the Federal government.‖2Supporting this thesis, Vinson quotes Federalist 51 and the 10th Amendment, articulating the Framers intent of a limited federal government.3Vinson states:  ―Rather than being the mere historic relic of a bygone era, the principle behind a central government with limited power has ‗never been more relevant than in this day, when accretion, if not actual accession, of power to the federal government seems not only unavoidable, but even expedient.‘‖4  After motions to dismiss, two issues remained:   (1) whether the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause (Count I) and (2)  ―[whether] [t]he expansion of Medicaid violates the Spending Clause and principles of federalism protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments‖ (Count IV).5

(read the entire memo)

There’s going to have to be a serious discussion among those 54 and younger concerning the future of benefits, the State of the Union speech, YouCut Ends Unnecessary Government Spending Program (the Presidential Election Campaign Fund) …

DUNN, NC – Today Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled that one of the major provisions of Obamacare — the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance – invalid.   Judge Vinson wrote, “because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.”

Congresswoman Ellmers’ reacted to the news saying, “This is what those of us in favor of repealing Obamacare have been saying all along — the law is flawed to the extent that it is not salvageable.   That is why I voted for repeal. We need to start over from scratch with real health care reforms that make sure patients, families and their doctors are in charge of their health care decisions, not politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.”

Legislation granting the president internet-killing powers is to be re-introduced soon to a Senate committee, the proposal’s chief sponsor told Wired.com on Friday.

The resurgence of the so-called “kill switch” legislation came the same day Egyptians faced an internet blackout designed to counter massive demonstrations in that country.

The bill, which has bipartisan support, is being floated by Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposed legislation, which Collins said would not give the president the same power Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak is exercising to quell dissent, sailed through the Homeland Security Committee in December but expired with the new Congress weeks later.

The bill is designed to protect against “significant” cyber threats before they cause damage, Collins said.

“My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,” Collins said in an e-mail Friday. “It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.”

The timing of when the legislation would be re-introduced was not immediately clear, as kinks to it are being worked out.

An aide to the Homeland Security committee described the bill as one that does not mandate the shuttering of the entire internet. Instead, it would authorize the president to demand turning off access to so-called “critical infrastructure” where necessary.

An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack.

What’s unclear, however, is how the government would have any idea when a cyber attack was imminent or why the operator wouldn’t shutter itself if it detected a looming attack.

About two dozen groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology, were skeptical enough to file an open letter opposing the idea. They are concerned that the measure, if it became law, might be used to censor the internet.

“It is imperative that cyber-security legislation not erode our rights,” (.pdf) the groups wrote last year to Congress.

A congressional white paper (.pdf) on the measure said the proposal prohibits the government from targeting websites for censorship “based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Oddly, that’s exactly the same language in the Patriot Act used to test whether the government can wiretap or investigate a person based on their political beliefs or statements.

Click here for the story

Representative Heath Shuler and Representative Jim Cooper introduced two bills aimed at reforming the Congressional redistricting process to lessen the divisive, partisan tone in Washington.

Shuler introduced the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, H.R. 453, which requires states to establish an independent, bipartisan commission to redraw congressional district lines every 10 years following the decennial census. An equal number of commissioners would be appointed by the minority and majority floor leaders in each state’s legislatures. The appointed commissioners would then elect, by majority vote, the commission chairperson. This legislation requires the commission to use geographical contiguity and compactness of district, rather than political affiliations and the impact redistricting will have on incumbent representatives, as criteria for redrawing district lines. If passed H.R. 453 would go into effect for the 2020 redistricting, not 2010.

“The American people should choose their representatives—not the other way around,” Rep. Shuler said. “The current system of gerrymandered districts has left a patchwork of highly-partisan, ideologically skewed Congressional districts, where Representatives are more beholden to their political party than the constituents they were elected to serve. While most Americans identify with the ideological center, too many of our congressional districts don’t reflect that. These gerrymandered districts often result in representatives from both extremes of the political spectrum being elected to Congress who cannot or will not work together for the benefit of all.”

Rep. Cooper introduced companion legislation to H.R. 453, the Redistricting Transparency Act, which requires all proposed redistricting plans to be available online for review and public comment prior to their adoption. This legislation will increase public participation and accountability in the redistricting process, set to begin in most states within in the next week.

“Together, these two pieces of legislation take steps to create a culture of bipartisanship that has been absent in Washington in recent years,” Rep. Shuler said. “If we are to work together in Washington to find solutions to the challenges facing our country, bipartisanship must start at home with the way our congressional districts are drawn. The result will be a system where the American people—not political parties—have the advantage in our political process.”

——————————————————————————

Living in severely gerrymandered districts myself- NC12 and State NC32, I am the first one to raise my hand in support of redistricting reform. However, I’m not so sure this is the best way to go about it. What are your thoughts?

– Wendy
Find me on Facebook and Twitter