Sen. Bill Nelson: ‘Possibility but not Probability’ Health Care Law is Unconstitutional
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports:
UPDATE: Despite what Sen. Nelson told us about the inclusion of a “severability clause” in the health care law, the law actually does not contain such language.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that parts of the law couldn’t be upheld even if others are tossed out. But the exclusion of the language was a critical point in Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling this week that the entire legislation should be tossed out on constitutional grounds.
“First, the Act does not contain a ‘severability clause,’ which is commonly included in legislation,” Vinson wrote. “The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. … In other words, the severability clause was intentionally left out of the Act… In light of the foregoing, Congress’ failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.”
ORIGINAL POST:
With federal courts issuing conflicting opinions on President Obama’s health care law, Sen. Bill Nelson has sponsored a resolution to push the Supreme Court to fast-track consideration of the law’s constitutionality.
On ABC’s “Top Line” today, Nelson, D-Fla., said he wants a quick judgment from the high court – something the Obama administration pointedly isn’t asking for – to provide certainty to those who are impacted by the new law.
“There are 35 million people out there that would like to have health insurance and they want to know is the law constitutional or not,” Nelson told us. “We all know that the Supreme Court is ultimately going to decide the constitutionality of this. So why shouldn't it be sooner than later?”
Asked what would happen if the Supreme Court tosses out the health care law, Nelson responded:
“I think that's a possibility, but it's not a probability. We were very careful when we crafted this law. It is going to pass constitutional muster. There might be parts of it that might be struck down. But there is at the end of it what is called a severability clause, that says if parts are stuck down, that doesn't strike down the whole law.”
On the crisis in Egypt, Nelson – who was one of the first US lawmakers to call for President Hosni Mubarak to step aside – said the Obama White House needs to “bluntly tell him you've got to step aside.”
“We know what his successor looks like, and if this had been done back in the first part of the week when we started discussing this that he would resign, his vice president [Omar] Suleiman becomes president.”
“He is someone that is acceptable. Now you let all of these clashes go and the bloodshed and the killing and so forth, it's going to be much more difficult to have his vice president become president and be accepted by the Arab street. But if he would get on with it, General Suleiman would be president until the elections that are held in September.”
“I think we've got to bluntly tell him you've got to step aside,” Nelson added.
Nelson, a former astronaut, also told us that he expects Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly, to announce tomorrow whether he’ll command the next shuttle mission, and that it’s “reasonable to expect” that Kelly will sign on for the trip.
Watch the full interview with Sen. Bill Nelson HERE.
Also today, we chatted with former Sen. Adlai E. Stevenson III, D-Ill., about his family legacy of public service and his new book of family wit and wisdom, “The Black Book.”
Watch that portion of “Top Line” HERE.
Rick Santorum Defends Earmarks 
Ron Paul Ad's Call Santorum a 'Fake'
Almost everyone opposing this opposes the individual mandate. If that is the “portion” which is struck down, that will be a win enough for opponents of the bill, while proponents will cling to a false victory and prance around saying “I told you it was Constitutional” ignoring the fact that the part that is likely to be struck down is the part everyone has been calling Unconstitutional all along.
Posted by: JoJo | February 3, 2011, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
There has never been any real question about it being unconstitutional…..it was just that we had to wait for the courts to agree with the citizens, that it is.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | February 3, 2011, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
So, if there has been no question about the unconstitutionality (and most who’ve read the Federalist Papers agree), why have so many leftists/progressives including one who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar, claimed it to be constitutional?
Posted by: deanbob | February 3, 2011, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
“Almost everyone opposing this opposes the individual mandate. If that is the “portion” which is struck down, that will be a win enough for opponents of the bill, while proponents will cling to a false victory and prance around saying “I told you it was Constitutional” ignoring the fact that the part that is likely to be struck down is the part everyone has been calling Unconstitutional all along.”
Please. We don’t like the mandate either. We want it struck down because that will pave the way for single payer. The only reason the admin adopted the mandate was to make the law acceptable to the health care companies. Kill the mandate! Bring on single payer!
Posted by: Nikki | February 3, 2011, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
ssa | Feb 3, 2011 3:57:29 PM
Funny how you state inactivity is already regulated and give nothing more than an “activist” website as some form of fact. So does jury duty or the draft force you to buy a product from the free market? NO. It is a duty we are called upon to ensure our country remains ours and free of those who would harm us. I am sure you can understand the difference between your duty as a citizen and the government forcing you to buy something.
Posted by: lfrichar | February 3, 2011, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
Mr Nelson – you stated that there are 35 million people out there that want health insurance. You are propbably right, however there are not 35 million people who want to pay for that same health insurance. And quite frankly I am tired of all you politicians claiming that this train wreck of legislation is going to provide affordable health care for anyone. My health insurance premium for a crappy plan is 1267.00 per month for my wife and me, and going up. And I’m an insurance agent
Posted by: Doug | February 3, 2011, 6:52 pm 6:52 pm
Is Obamascare unconstitutional? Are Rick Klien,Jonathan Karl, Sam Donaldson,
Christine Annapour,Diane Sawyer,Amy Walter,Huma Khan,Michael Falcone, and George Stephonopolis all liberals??
Posted by: taptap77 | February 3, 2011, 7:32 pm 7:32 pm
I know people who live in Canada who currently live abroad. They are planning to retire in Bali but are Canadian citizens. They CAN DO THIS WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE because they can run back to Canada for care. But we, as stupid Americans, fight this thing tooth and nail over some stupid triviality (really a pro big business, save the health insurance profits agenda). Guess what? WE ARE STUCK, as slaves, relying on an employer (who frankly really doesn’t want to cover us) or buying it. We’d rather get political about this and in the mean time screw ourselves out of a great deal and protect vested interests who care nothing really about us individually. Like leading Lemmings to a cliff ain’t it? Brainwashed morons.
Posted by: Richard | February 3, 2011, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm
“Despite what Sen. Nelson told us about the inclusion of a “severability clause” in the health care law, the law actually does not contain such language”
When Senator Nelson finally reads the bill, he will realize there is no severability clause.
Posted by: Joe White | February 3, 2011, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm
“I think that’s a possibility, but it’s not a probability. We were very careful when we crafted this law. It is going to pass constitutional muster. There might be parts of it that might be struck down. But there is at the end of it what is called a severability clause, that says if parts are stuck down, that doesn’t strike down the whole law.”
This should read: We were so careless when drafting this law that we didn’t bother to read it in order to know that it didn’t contain the severability clause we swore was in there somewhere.
Posted by: Mike Lee | February 3, 2011, 11:37 pm 11:37 pm
Politicians like him need to start fearing the population for not listening to the people..Uh Egypt comes to mind
Posted by: bigbiz2 | February 4, 2011, 7:39 pm 7:39 pm
Americans are being gouged by the insurance companies and yet there are those who pay out of their shirts for coverage and then call out to end the current LAW so they have the privilege to give more money to the health care industry. What doesn’t make sense here? No, wait a minute, it makes sense!!! You’re being told what to think by those who are benefiting by the lobbyists whose main purpose is to preserve the industry standard and take your dollars. Think about it working America. Don’t be a brainless cheerleader for the insurance companies. Time to see the truth. Who in their right mind would want to repeal a Law that now protects us from the former insurance company abuses? The same ones who were benefiting by riding our backs like mules to grow extravagantly rich. (Politicians and the insurance industry).
Posted by: Richard | February 4, 2011, 8:05 pm 8:05 pm
His comments indicate the true fall of the intelligence level of the American people. Here is a man that has been an astronaut and is a Senator. He is a moron. To use the Interstate Commerce clause to regulate inactivity, there would be no earthly limit to what Government could force you to do. If the law is Constitutional and just, why is it that there are 734 industries, companies and specially-significant, unions that are granted waivers exempting themselves from the jurisdiction of the law? The cornerstone of all American society is fairness and equal liberty for all. But, just like a gangsta thug, President
Obama has stated in public and on record, “that he intends to reward his friends and punish his enemies.”
Unfortunately, all the citizens of the U.S. must be enemies of Obama as they are saddled with this onerous, unconstitutional abomination, except of course for his “special” friends in the unions, ACORN, and the Democrat hit squads. Nice to know that Obama is governing justly and evenly as any other President has done. Not.
Posted by: Jonboy | February 4, 2011, 11:22 pm 11:22 pm
Barak Obama is the president of the U.S.A.. Fact. Health Care Law passed. Fact. Unfortunately some people can’t handle the facts. Fact. Please stop wasting taxpayer money in court over political whimpering.
Posted by: Richard | February 5, 2011, 8:36 pm 8:36 pm
Laws which are passed by Congress are sometimes later found to be unconstitutional by the courts. Fact.
That’s how our system works. It’s called checks and balances. Fact.
Posted by: Joe White | February 7, 2011, 12:18 am 12:18 am
Healthcare=politics and power in order to have majority votes, seats in Senate, notarity and so on. There are some thinks that I agree with President Obama and some things that I disagree with. Healthcare bill is one of my disagreements. There aren’t enough healthcare professionals (nurses, doctors, technicians, medical billing coders who are certified) to meet the demands.
Posted by: TTootoo | February 25, 2011, 3:39 am 3:39 am