Health Care Unconstitutional: Obama Sedition?

Yes, that's a strong word.

It may also be appropriate.

The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on "anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis." Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.

So now we have a White House that has declared its intent to ignore a declaratory judgment.

The Administration has no right to do this.

Obama's White House has exactly two options:

• Comply with the ruling. This means that any and all activity authorized or mandated by the Statute cease now.
  
  
• File an appeal and ask for a stay pending its hearing. If said stay is granted, then the ruling is held pending consideration.

That's it.

Folks, this is clear. The Judge in question, Judge Vinson, in fact sets forth exactly this in the opinion:

(5) Injunction

The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).

Except in this case The White House has now declared its intent to intentionally disobey the law as declared by the court.

There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.

Well, as of today, there is such a reason to so conclude.

The Plaintiffs need to make their way back to court this morning and file an emergency request for both an injunction and a citation of contempt of court against the members of The Obama Administration, including President Obama personally, Kathleen Sebelius and The Internal Revenue Service, all of which are staffing up for and acting as if this law remains in full force and effect.

This is now a full-blown Constitutional Crisis. The Executive's willful, intentional and publicly-stated refusal to honor a declaratory judgment is an open act of willful and intentional violation of The Separation of Powers in The Constitution and, if combined with the use of or threat of use of force as is always present when government coercion is employed, treads awfully close to the line, and may cross it, of 18 USC Ch 115 Sec 2384, to wit:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The exercise of power by the Executive and Judicial branch, under which the Internal Revenue and Health and Human Services operate, inherently constitutes the use of force.

When such is used to "prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of The United States" the parties that have done so, it can be argued, have engaged in a Seditious Conspiracy.

By the way, Mark Levin pretty much sees it this way too. I agree with him, but I'll go further - unless the Obama Administration either stands down now or files an appeal and seeks a stay and stands down until said stay is granted, if it is, then they have indeed crossed the line.