Yesterday, in Florida, Federal Judge Robert Vinson struck down as unconstitutional, the National Health Care Law, known as Obamacare, which was shoved down Americans’ throats by our current president and his sycophantic Democratic Congress.

One of the unique things about the ruling was the fact that Judge Vinson used Obama’s own words from his 2008 Presidential Campaign against him.

Per The Washington Times, Judge Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling, that:

I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house’.

Obama had spoken these words in a CNN interview, in an attempt to distinguish his healthcare plan from that of fellow Democrat candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s. Obama’s plan, at the time, did not call for an individual mandate.

According to Obama and the Democrats’ defense of Obamacare, the individual mandate is the cornerstone of the legislation, and forcing Americans to buy health insurance will provide the funds needed to finance the takeover of America’s Health Care System.

Judge Vinson also discussed in his ruling how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, intended congressional power to have limits. Judge Vinson even made the strong point that, according to the Obama administration‘s view of federal power, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.

The White House called the 2008 campaign quote a “surpassingly curious reading” in an attempt to invalidate Judge Vinson‘s ruling.

According to an anonymous WH official who briefed reporters yesterday:

There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis.

Translation: How dare you hoist the president on his own petard!

Judge Vinson also wrote:

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.

Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution.

The phrase not severable means  just that.  The individual mandate cannot simply be excised from the present law. 

It’s all or nothing. 

The Democrat-majority Congress, in their almighty arrogance, allowed themselves to be blinded by their own hubris, leaving out a severability clause, which would have saved their precious Healthcare Law from being ruled unconstitutional.

Of course, the government will appeal the ruling and the next step will be a trip to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  From there, the 26 states involved in the fight against Obamacare and the Obama Administration will take the battle to the U.S. Supreme Court where it will be up to the 9 Judges, 8 if Kagan recuses herself, to decide the fate of the greatest Health Care System in the world.

If Obamacare goes into effect, starting in 2014, anyone who does not carry health insurance will have to pay a penalty.

Per spectator.org:

As for the actual cost involved, the penalty will be the higher of either $695 or 2.5% of income. Effectively, those earning below $27,800 would pay the flat rate, and after that point would begin paying the percentage. Once a person earns more than $40,000, the penalty will exceed $1,000. At $59,000, it would reach $1,475.

The Administration and its minions have been vacillating on whether to call this a tax or a penalty.

In fact, I had a Liberal who was trolling on a Conservative website yesterday, tell me  that it was just like making a donation to charity.

Excuse me. But it’s not a government law that I have to give to charity.  That’s my choice.

As I mentioned earlier, in making his historical ruling, Judge Vinson quoted James Madison, who wrote in The Federalist No. 51 that:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

An out-of-control Government? Yep. That describes America’s situation to a tee.

Please allow me to leave you with two quotes from Judge Vinson’s remarkable ruling:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

It would be a radical departure from existing case-law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.

Judging from the actions of the Administration and Congress  in 2010, your Honor, I think that was the general idea.