Important New Filings in the OCA

Fellow Constitutionalists,

Today Liberty Legal Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Federal District Court in Lubbock Texas to rule Obamacare, in its entirety, unconstitutional. We wanted to let you know right away, hence the mid-week update. You can read our motion on Liberty Legal’s web page - OCA Case Status.

We filed this motion now because over the past several weeks several rulings from other Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, emphasized that our argument is correct. Liberty Legal Foundation has been arguing from the beginning that ALL of Obamacare is beyond the scope of authority of Congress. We never limited our arguments to the individual mandate. Instead we’ve been arguing all along that the FDR-packed Supreme Court of 1942 destroyed the Constitution in its Wickard v. Filburn ruling.

Now, a year and a half after Obamacare was signed into law, Federal Courts are starting to say the same thing! I urge you to at least read the quotes from the 6th Circuit on pages 10 and 11 of our motion.

A couple of weeks ago I told you about the 11th Circuit and 6th Circuit decisions, one upholding the individual mandate and the other ruling it unconstitutional. Both courts had split decisions from their 3-judge panels. One was 2 to 1 upholding the individual mandate, the other was 2 to 1 finding it unconstitutional. What was amazing about the opinions written by these 6 Federal judges was that as much as they disagree, they all agree on the underlying problem. We have two courts, six judges, five separately written opinions, two opposing rulings, and a tie on whether the individual mandate is constitutional: three judges for, three against. Yet they all agree on one thing: Wickard made a mess of commerce clause precedent.

Now, with all that laid out, isn’t the solution obvious?! OVERTURN WICKARD!!

Fortunately this is exactly what several of the judges suggested. Even the judges that ruled the individual mandate constitutional noted that their ruling was because Wickard left no appreciable limit on Congressional authority.

So, with all this recent ammunition from sitting Federal judges, we decided it was time to go on the offensive. Rather than wait for our Federal court to cite Wickard, dismiss our case, and send us up the appeal ladder, we filed our own motion for summary judgment, citing all the great language from the other courts.

Understand that because we are asking the court to overturn Supreme Court precedent typical procedure would be to expect the lower court to dismiss our case, allowing us to appeal to the Circuit Court, then to the Supreme Court. Traditionally lower courts refuse to overturn precedent from higher courts, even when the lower court is completely convinced that the precedent is wrong. However, in my opinion tradition is less important than upholding the Constitution. The Constitution protects fundamental rights from government intrusion. Fundamental rights, granted to us by God, are more important than the traditions of men in black robes.

So, we asked the court to violate tradition and ignore Wickard, in favor of the clear meaning of the Constitution.

Of course we understand that judges are unlikely to throw aside tradition, so we also made an alternative request of the court. We asked the court that if it denies our motion for summary judgment, it also make that ruling immediately appealable with a statement about its opinion of Wickard. This way, if our judge agrees with us, as we hope he will, but he still wants to honor tradition over the Constitution, he can tell the higher courts what he thinks of Wickard and pass our case up the ladder with his statement attached.

Please understand just how unusual this motion is. Asking the Court to set aside this particular tradition amounts to legal heresy. I really can’t overstate just how much lower courts honor even the most ridiculous precedent from higher courts. However, this so-called doctrine really is just a tradition. Nothing in the Constitution, in any statute, or in any rule of procedure that I’m aware of requires it. Yet asking a court to ignore it is akin to screaming obscenities in church. It is simply not done.

However, our Founding Fathers stood up to the power of a King to establish our Constitutional Republic. Hundreds of thousands of men have died horrible deaths on the battlefield to defend our Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution protects the freedom that God gave to all of us, the freedom that made America great. With that perspective in mind, I can’t stand by and allow a mere legal tradition to delay our battle to restore our Constitutional Republic. I don’t think it’s asking too much of a Federal judge to stand up for the Constitution, even if it means violating a sacrosanct tradition and defying the higher courts in this one instance. A little rebellion is a good thing. Especially if it prevents a bloody revolution.

In Liberty,

Van Irion

Co-Founder, Lead Counsel

LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

LINK