ObamaCare Individual Mandate Struck Down
Virginia Federal District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled today that the individual mandate in ObamaCare and all the provisions in that Act which relate to it are unconstitutional. The judge’s ruling is posted here, but here are two of the key excerpts:
Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers.[p.21]
[...]
It is clear from the text of Section 1501 that the underlying regulatory scheme was conceived as an exercise of Commerce Clause powers. This is supported by specific factual findings purporting to demonstrate the effect of the health care scheme on interstate commerce. In order for the noncompliance penalty component to survive constitutional challenge, it must serve to effectuate a valid exercise of an enumerated power-here the Commerce Clause. [at p. 36]
In doing so, Judge Hudson rejected the administration’s claims that Congress has the authority to regulate decisions not to buy insurance coverage, and that the mandate which it had originally asserted was a penalty not a tax,was indeed, a tax.
A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.
The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance-or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage-it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution confers upon Congress only discrete enumerated governmental powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. See U.S. Canst. amend. X; Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 919, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 2376-77 (1997). [at p. 37, emphasis supplied]
On careful review, this Court must conclude that Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-specifically the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision-exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power. [at p. 38]
The latter defense was, as the Court noted, a clear after the fact Hail Mary play the administration tried when it was clear that the Commerce Clause might not be sufficient to cover this legislative overreach.
Because the case was decided on motions for summary judgment there was no testimony, no expert witnesses, and no detailed discussion of more than a few of the 400 provisions in the act, most of which relate to other matters. Further, the haste with which it was enacted made it impossible for the Court to determine on the record how much of the remaining law was dependent on Section 1501. Therefore, relying on sound constitutional law, the judge declined to issue an injunction of the act because the mandate and the provisions specifically related to it do not even go into effect until 2014.
A clear, astute analysis of this lawsuit and its salutary disposition in Virginia. May the Supreme Court
affirm Judge Hudson’s ruling and hasten the demise of this jumbled mess of a law.
This attempt at State Socialism by the Son of the New Age hit the Constitution of these United States.
Nationalism is still strong in America. One can tell by the latest vote. 2012 can not get here fast enough to rid ourselves of the pagan rising Sun.
I sincerely hope this decision will continue to derail the government healthcare juggernaut which was previously dragging us all a great deal farther along the road to serfdom. However, the Left will portray the courage of this one federal judge’s legal opinion not as a manifestation “of a government of laws, rather than men”, but as the judicial tyranny of one man—a man, no doubt, who lays awake at night dreaming of ways to deprive the poor, the aged, and the helpless of healthcare (ala Howard Dean’s famous calumny against Republicans).
I give thanks our Founding Fathers understood the proclivities of both the vulgar mob and the grasping tyrant when they crafted the separation of powers into the Constitution, purposely designing three branches of government to point their guns at on another rather than at the people. Now, if we could only bring the regulatory state to heal to this principle.
God save our Republic!
It still is likely IMO that there will be a political resolution before there is a judicial oNe.
From NRO’s The Corner, here’s Eric Canton:
” ‘To ensure an expedited process moving forward, I call on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to join Attorney General Cuccinelli in requesting that this case be sent directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this challenging environment, we must not burden our states, employers, and families with the costs and uncertainty created by this unconstitutional law, and we must take all steps to resolve this issue immediately. ‘
Cantor also promised to pass “a clean repeal of ObamaCare” once the Republicans take over the House in January.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255170/cantor-calls-direct-appeal-supreme-court-daniel-foster
Canter has all the prevailing populist rhetoric of repealing the Health Care Act but….
Repealing or amending an existing law, requires a member of Congress to sponsor an entirely new bill. The new bill, through its wording, will either repeal an existing law upon passage or amend an existing bill. The amendment can remove sections of the original bill, add to the existing bill, or offer qualifications to the body of the initial bill in order to better define the purpose, language, or enforcement.
Lets assume for a moment that the congress (House) writes an entirely new bill which includes the directive to repeal the old bill and replace with the new bill. Lets assume also that such new bill and repeal of the old bill somehow passes both houses of congress. Enter the President and his veto pen! Unless the President uses the “pocket veto” the congress must have a [two-thirds majority vote] of the Members present is required to override a presidential veto. If one house fails to override a veto, the other house does not attempt to override, even if the votes are present to succeed. The House and Senate may attempt to override a veto anytime during the [Congress in which the veto is issued].
So, while all the populist rhetoric by a number congressional GOP members sounds good and easy….it is NOT! When these people propose a definitive plan such as a new bill repealing the old, or how they intend to comply successfully with veto procedures…I will listen.
I am having a good laugh at Mojo, BC, Vivo and a few others who predicted the law to be constitutional or whistled by the grave yard regarding the commerce clause issue. Reconcilaiation prevented the insertion of a severability clause. The whole Rube Goldberg contraption could collapse as momentum builds against this monster after this ruling and an anticipated similar outcome from the Florida district court. The law is now more unpopular than ever before. The Dems are going to be fending off the after effects for years. The Repubs in the House now have the wind at their backs to defund or take other steps to initiate repeal. The pressure on the Senate and the President will be intense. The political cost for supporting this boondoggle will increase as 2012 approaches because of its negative impact on the consumer that will become more apparent as time passes. Obama will look more and more feckless as the months go by. There will be no positive politics for Dems except in the most far left enclaves where they will become increasingly isolated.
The appeal process will go on for at least two more years. In the end the pro Obamacare forces may prevail, but the tide is running hard against them both judicially and politically.
If you are forced to buy a product, like insurance, by the Federal government, and the States are then forced to do so as well, then Federalism is dead. At that point, the Federal government will be able to tell you to do anything it wants and hide it under the Commerce Clause. At least this judge had the good common sense to see this. Unfortunately, this will still end up in the Supreme Court, where anything can happen.
It will be interesting if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare and if the states then do not enact it. Think about it, how would the Feds force all 50 states into this program if the majority of them simply do not want to do it? The states can also demand that it will not enact Obamacare unless the Feds pay for the whole program and NOT stick the states with much of the costs. The Federal Government would then go broke trying to pay for this, not that Obama would care in the least.
Your States refusal to “enact” premises is flawed. Federal “coersion” over the States has become settled law for a time. There are better defined cases but I haven’t the time to look them up at the moment so this one will have to serve the purpose.
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html (I added the emphasis **_**)
[“To the argument that the tax and credit in combination were “weapons of coercion, destroying or impairing the autonomy of the States,” the Court replied that relief of unemployment was a legitimate object of federal expenditure under the **“general welfare”** clause, that the Social Security Act represented a legitimate attempt to solve the problem by the cooperation of State and Federal Governments, that the credit allowed for state taxes bore a reasonable relation “to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation,”
Obama issues statement on VA judge’s ruling vowing to fight on, read it here…
Yes, Nancy, we are serious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc
Maybe Congressman Phil Hare (D – IL) should have worried about the Constitution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgh-q4t0kzM&feature=related
One reason why a lot of these Dems got voted out is because we didn’t forget the condescending way they dismissed anyone who questioned the constitutionality of the health care law. They talked down to these people as if they were fools.
In the end, they are the ones who will end up looking foolish.
Folks need to remember that the VA case was limited in scope to a single section of the Health Care Act vs. a standing State law. The FL case enjoined by several States will better address the majority legal foundations of the Health Care Act and the issue of non-severability clause (omitted in the legislation). When such cases independently or joindered, reaches the Supreme Court, it will be a different ballgame. The Supreme Court has its own numerous establised case law pertaining to the commerce clause and the so-called General Wefare Clause issues of the Obama Health care Act.
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html
I would invite all who read this reference to take note that it wasn’t until essentially the 20th century that the courts began to give broad authority to congress under the Commerce and “General Welfare” clauses. It should bew noted the time frames for which the interpretations of Madison were controlling and when the writings and opinions of Hamilton become controlling. Madisons writings and opinions were before and during the ratification and Hamiltons was of course [after] ratification. Personally, I would have to lend more weight to the “intent” as presented by Madison during the drafting and ratification as opposed to Hamiltons opinions post ratification.
The absolute solution is to bring a Constitutional Amendement to Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause.
Obama doesn’t care in the least about this judgement. His tactic is to drive private insurance out of business/price them out of business. Once that succeeds he has won and our lives are, literally, in the hands of politics and bureaucrats. We are seeing reports of the success of his tactic already. The old-guard Republicans are not up to the task of stopping this. I hope new the new blood gets it.
Hey, if you can’t buy insurance across state lines there’s no interstate commerce for the federal government to regulate. No commerce, no meddling.
Congress already “interferes” w/interstate commerce by prohibiting the purchase of medical insurance across state lines, so how can they now turn around & use the commerce clause as an excuse? Still, this doesn’t seem to be a big part of any of the lawsuits & you have to wonder why.
Thanks Clarice for your clarity.
Unfortunately Liberals/progs are not persuadable and the remainder of the citizenry is easly demogogued by false promises and accusations of bad faith by political actors such as Nancy Pelosi. Recall that only four years ago Pelosi refused to even consider joining Bush inhis push to reform SS; saying that SS finances were “sound”. While this is true in the sense that the IOU’s held by SS can be redeemed to pay benefits the level of taxation required to do so will beggar the entire nation.
Wake up America! The hard truths are darn near indigestible but one way or another they must be faced.
If you work for a large corporation or government institution this will not affect you, however if you buy your own individual insurance policy it will. Although I totally agree with the judges ruling that the government is not allowed to force you to buy insurance if the rest of Obamacare is not also done away with it will be devastating for those of us who buy individual policies with high deductibles and no prescription drug coverage. Currently Obamacare says that I can’t have the insurance I currently have after 2014. It requires insurance companies to only offer policies that have low deductibles, prescription coverage plus they have to cover pre-existing illnesses. Without the pool of people ‘required’ to buy insurance and the mandates now put on the insurance companies I will probably be forced to go on whatever government plan that is offered. My rates already doubled in September. With this decision my rates will probably quadruple if the insurance companies decide to even offer individual policies at all. We must push for a total repeal of Obamacare and a decision that government cannot tell private insurance companies what it will offer and cover. Medicare, Medicaid are in the government’s power circle. Private insurance should not be.
I’ve always been amused by the progressive’s medical insurance mandate justification under the rubric of the commerce clause, that the individual is making an economic decision, even when the decision is to be economically inactive. So, I gather, strictly speaking, to follow that logic, the states and the federal congress, contrary to Roe V Wade, should be able to regulate the refusal to make babies, obviously an economic decision? If not, why not?
Thank God. Thank God. I never thought I’d be so relieved to see the phrase “an individual’s right to choose” in a court decision again — I’m sure he phrased that very deliberately!!!
Downside — applies only to the Fed. Here in the Progressive People’s State of Massachusetts, we still have state-mandated insurance, and the decision of course applies only on the federal level. What snake-oil/smoke n mirrors conjure voodoo is the Sock Puppet going to pull to induce the other 56 states to follow our lead?
Obamacare doesn’t have a severability clause. The whole thing was [properly] ruled unconstitutional.
Mark Levine was on the Kudlow show yesterday making a claim against Hudson’s ruling:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1696490342&play=1
Now I’m not an advocate for Mark Levine by any means but he did make some arguments I had to think on.
There is always the act of “nullification” like that bill introduced in Texas HB-297 which states;
“The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.
The federal Act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.”
It also goes further making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000 and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.
All that needs to happen is the State Legislature have both the House and Senate to enact such a nullification bill and have it signed by the Governor. This way it doesn’t matter if the law is ruled unconstitutional or not by the supreme court the law is invalid in all states that nullify it!