Breaking: 11th Circuit Rules Individual Mandate in ObamaCare Unconstitutional (Updates)
The news is just now breaking, so no wire stories have popped up yet and the decision, said to be about 300 pages, has not been posted. Look here for links as the news rolls in.
Update: Here we go.
An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama’s healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
That last part makes little sense, since the law had no severability clause in it. Kill one part, you kill it all has been the theory. Kicking out the mandate but leaving the rest intact makes things even messier, in my opinion.
Anyway, everyone knows this thing is headed to the Supreme Court, where Anthony Kennedy’s mood will determine whether the interstate commerce clause can be used to force people to buy a product that they cannot buy across state lines.
Update: This ruling concerns the multi-state lawsuit against ObamaCare.
The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.
“This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” a divided three-judge panel said.
Obama and his administration had pressed for the law to help halt the steep increases in healthcare costs and expand insurance coverage to the more than 30 million Americans who are without it.
The decision was 2-1.
Update: Legal Insurrection has more.
AMEN!
The Hope and the Change we were looking for!
Oh crap.
With no proviso in ObamaCare to say otherwise, if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the whole deal is.
ignored by Demonrats.. 300 pages is too much fact.. it might explode their heads.. lol
There’s just no way the individual mandate could ever have been enforced anyway.
All it would take is a coordinated “boycott” by, say, a million people (which is just 1% of the people who hate the law) and the Feds would be completely overwhelmed. What are they gonna do, put a million people in jail?
In case you think this could never work, a similar thing happened in a completely unofficial disjointed way with the Selective Service law that Jimmy Carter started. Remember that Nixon/Ford ended the draft, but Jimmy Carter re-started “Selective Service”, in which males had to registered for the draft on their 18th birthdays, sometime around 1980 or so. People were like, “WTF??? There’s no war!”, and teen boys simply ignored the law en masse by the millions. Sure, millions did sign up, but a huge percentage did not. The penalty for not doing so was theoretically severe, including 5 years in jail, but how could the government cope with massive passive resistance? They couldn’t very well jail an entire generation.
They let the issue slide for a decade or two, and then I believe in the Clinton era, they unceremoniously declared an amnesty for everyone who disobeyed in the past.
The law may in fact still be on the books, but I wager that a significant potion of 18-year-old boys just ignore it.
Oh, it’s still on the books. I remember signing in around my 18th birthday, taking comfort ONLY in that there was currently no draft.
But look what I found on the Selective Service website: http://www.sss.gov/default.htm
“ATTENTION, UNDOCUMENTED MALES
& IMMIGRANT SERVICING GROUPS!
Selective Service does not collect any information which would indicate whether or not you are undocumented. You want to protect yourself for future U.S. citizenship and other government benefits and programs by registering with Selective Service. Do it today.
If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Selective Service will accept late registrations but not after a man has reached age 26. You may be denied benefits or a job if you have not registered. You can register at any U.S. Post Office and do not need a social security number. When you do obtain a social security number, let Selective Service know. Provide a copy of your new social security number card; being sure to include your complete name, date of birth, Selective Service registration number, and current mailing address; and mail to the Selective Service System, P.O. Box 94636, Palatine, IL 60094-4636.”
So, if you’re a criminal alien, hoping to benefit from a subsequent amnesty, you have to register with Selective Service, in order to avoid losing the benefits for which you have invaded our country to begin with. =0[.]o=
A fraudulent SS# would circumvent any real chance of being selected..
just ask Barry.. umm or Obama.. or whatever that guy’s name really is..
” What are they gonna do, put a million people in jail?”
No, just lien their property, levy their bank accounts, garnishee their wages, that sort thing. Just everyday activity for the IRS. That’s why they chose to penalize us through our tax return. So the IRS can enforce it without having to respect any of the legal niceties such as due process of law.
At which point we’ll have x percent of 1,000,000 motivated to open hunting season on anyone who works for the IRS. Not all IRS employees are armed agents.
This is precisely how you get a hot Revolutionary / Civil War.
Oh yeah, BillyBad@$$, said IRS agents are not officially sanctioned to be packing heat. Do you think that they’re all STUPID??? Better judged by 12 than buried by 6. Think about it, real hard. I know you can do it if you try.
All you dumb masses have to do is get your congresscritters to change the law. The IRS will do what it’s told.
Othere have said this but one of the “Five Guys I’d Least Like To Be In The World” is Justice Anthony Kennedy because all of this is coming straight at him. Either way he goes (and I hope he does the right thing and invalidates Obamacare) he is going to be put through a wood-chipper.
demonrats hope before so they have sure shot at communism…
Maybe it will be better for the Supremes to not get the case until after Nov 2012.
It may help Mr. Kennedy’s decision making to get another dose of how the country feels about the people who passed the monstrosity.
Of course, that has to be weighed against the damage they busy little bureaucrats can do in the interim.
We are prone to react to this ruling as if Team 44 and the rest of the democrats have any concern for the rule of law. Oh and another point, If new revenues ie taxes are so important to them, why have they granted so many waivers to the health care law? I guess it is ok for a union to request a waiver but when the Tea Party does it they are lableled terrorists….
The panel consisted of 2 democrats appointed by Clinton and 1 republican appointed by GHWB so one of the democrats ruled against Obamacare.
One thing to be aware of: while it found the mandate beyond the commerce clause, it also found it severable; this could mean that we still get ObamaCare in a version that is (somehow) even more likely to fail.
And that failure would sadly help the single payer crowd, as Government has gotten very good at blaming any failure in a regulated market on the unregulated portion of said market.
We need to make sure the real conservatives on the court do not accept the severability argument, and that it does not sway Kennedy should the liberal wing of the court endorse the whole of the 11th Cir. ruling.
Also, I hope the dissent lays clear the troubling direction of the Commerce clause jurisprudence, as it recognizes the continual, unprincipled growth of the clause’s scope and (in a stunning display of liberal “logic”) uses that abandonment of limitations as justification for an absence of limitations.
“Sustainable revenue, private sector or public sector, is the problem!”
the public sector pay no revenue… that’s why they are overpaid, to offset the cost of non-income taxes..
that ignorant statement screwed your whole comment..
wrong reply target… my bad?
vangrungy…no problem…I’ll address your comment here!
Who pays what or who doesn’t is irrelevant to my comment! Unsustainable revenue is simply unsustainable revenue regardless. Furthermore, your comment regarding “they don’t pay…” is simply you being misinformed. You might want to do a ‘breakdown’ of all the employee classes. One might want to objectively reconsider their tired old rhetoric of the public sector steals from the taxpayer and national economy concept.
Public employees don’t send their tax payer income off to Mexico each payday. They turn right around and invest/spend it back into the private sector economy and each dollar recirculates back into the private sector economy just as your dollars do to the same benefit! If anybody should be accused of sending money/investments out of the nations private sector economy to foreign soil, it is the most wealthy down to the least wealthy of the private sector.
The most wealthy invest in foreign luxury real estate, manufacturing, and services while the least wealthy invest in foreign nations economies by shopping and purchasing from the Walmarts, Targets, Dillards, Macys, Pennys, Sears, and on down the very long list.
The government measures its revenue by a percentage of the GDP and if the private sector is spending/investing more and more outside our domestic economy the domestic GDP decreases and the negative circular motion is set….government revenue decreases and liabilities risks increase.
Then comes the subject of who really pays what percentage of revenue into the government as a matter of GDP….individual or corporations. You can decide yourself after reviewing the first column!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=205&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21
Maybe now would be a good time for one to look at the issues of wealth parity as a matter of GDP in the nations economy…something solely established by the private sector.
Would now be a good time to take a look at increasing poverty rates in America?
How about seeing who the largest stakeholders of wealth an assets belong to in America…private sector…public sector? Last I checked, government revenue controls less than a quarter percent.
The nations problems have never been born through the government! ALL the nations problems have been born through the private sector and their special interest groups demanding more and more ‘from’ the government and its limited constitutional revenue sources.
So take a more serious look without your ‘political hat’ on to see that if the government controls, lets say 20% of the nations wealth and assets (GDP) and social programs are 60% of that 20% thats not really so bad considering that the constitution Article I, Section 8 clearly defines with specificity the governments duties; “common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;” while everything else in the constitution are matters of legislating and regulating.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide…… for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”
The United States consists of….land mass…. sovereign borders….people.
IF the private sector was responsible in all their actions and duties to the nation, independent of government “assistance” nobody would be having these kinds of discussions. But, they’re NOT and thus, all the problems our nation faces today!
In the end, it will prove that the socialist-progressives trapped the GOP once again in the Affordable Health Care Act. They are NOT so stupid as so many of the GOP and their followers of the moment want to prescribe. The centric issue, mandatory purchase, that will come before the Supreme Court will be ruled unconstitutional. Thus, it will open the door for major parts of the old 1993 reform bill to come into play which was constitutionally scrubed and Gov. Romney at the time, was Gov. of MA and implemented that portion being argued today on the federal level.
`(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (e), a State operating a State health allowance program under this section may make any individual (or class of individuals) who is not described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) and who is not offered coverage under an employer group health plan eligible to participate in the program.
`(B) SPECIAL RULES-
`(i) CONTRIBUTION MAY BE REQUIRED- In the case of an individual who is participating in the program under this paragraph, the program may require such an individual to contribute all (or a portion) of the premiums and cost-sharing of such a group health plan.
Other than addressing ‘fraud’ in approaching medicare costs at the federal program level, there are only two outcomes. Reduced health care services/quality. Reduced eligibility. Either have great consequences. In the first instance, quality of life and an unavoidable and unsustainable end of life cost. In the second instance, shifting the cost directly to the States and an unsustainable federal/State Mediciad program.
Susutainable revenue, private sector or public sector, is the problem! In the end, the ONLY solution will be a mandatory societal shared cost. Only the States under our constitution ‘MAY’ require such mandatory enactment. We simply have more population and to much economic poverty across society for the ever inflationary health care ‘systems’ to withstand on a voluntary basis. Unless of course, we become a society that sacrifices its people when they arrive at a particular economic class.
A favorable TeaParty-GOP Supreme Court ruling on the current federal legislation does NOT make the health care problems and inflationary costs to the nation…or the States, go away! Pay or sacrifice…. whether federal or States!
For those of the newer generations who will never grow old or infirmed and will always have absolute control over their high flying economic prosperity…guess you’re screwed for a bit of time until you can get rid of all the older generations dregs.
These court decisions are irreleveant to the health care problems of the nation!
hogwash.
The health care crisis is a problem invented by the marxists. Otherwise it would be handled just like every other societal problem, by our non-governmental institutions, particularly families.
Health care isn’t any different than food or shelter or transportation.
Turn Medicare into vouchers and the problem for older people is solved. No, they won’t get eternal life. It isn’t possible. But they’ll get much better health care than any other generation ehas ver has.
And for younger people, let them do what they have always done. Work to buy the things they need, including health insurance.
Obviously, you’re not staying up with the nations increasing poverty divide.
Obviously, you’re not staying up with health care inflation thats much higher than national inflation.
Obvisouly, you’re not staying up with the health care insurance excutives who state they cannot sustain your suggestions without everybody mandated to purchase insurance.
Let me repeat! You not ‘fixing’ anything! You’re only shifting unustainable liabilities from one place to another.
Sustainable revenue and high arbitrary health care inflation are the problems. Likewise, nobody is addressing the intra health care provider issues. You also mistakenly assume from all the populist rhetoric, that the health care cost problems are only a problem of ‘old government teat sucking folks’ and you couldn’t be more wrong. If it was as superficially simplistic to fix, as you state, it would be fixed accordingly with no issues.
Of course I’m not staying up for a problem that is invented by marxists. What I’m staying up for is the existential problem of the ruling class / marxists themselves.
And the situation in health care is self-correcting to boot. Rest assured, people will never spend 100% of their income on medical care. The need to eat will intervene.
Therefore, at some point between 20% of income and 100% of income, people will stop buying marginally effective medical procedures. Already a dominant majority of medical procedures hardly add anything to a person’t well-being or lifespan (most of the fabeled increase in lifespan has resulted from doctors washing their hands, and a decrease in dangerous jobs and infant mortality). It’s just that, when it looks like somebody else is paying for all or most of something, why not take it! I’ll take TWO!!!
Instead of inventing three new blood pressure medicines a year, I would prefer they spend the money on unlocking the secrets of longevity. That would be at least 100 times more valuable.
Yep, the whole crisis is a fraud. It’s not as obvious a lie as AGW, but the financial “crises” in health care is certainly one of the biggest cons ever foisted on humanity.
Proreason…sadly you’re off on the political rhetoric trail…not reality!
We can certainly agree that all of the private sector employed or otherwise wealth independent should be paying their own health care…not through employers and not in group plans but rather, in a competitive insurance arena across all states lines but on a state by state formula just as auto, home, RV, etc.
Next course of business would be taking on the arbitrary and absurd costs of medical education, followed by trial lawyers and their abuse of medical tort practice.
Then, the government establishes a discounted contract with multiple underwriters for its Medicare and medicaid programs based on the same state by state formula. You structure a periodical timeframe to reduce government costs down to maybe a final number around 40% or less….while transitioning past the ‘cyclical’ high rate of elderly from the baby boomers era with a new approach and far lesser cost to the government.
Folks haven’t a clue what this would do to not only stop the grossly high circular inflation of health care goods and services…but reverse it!
This is how you begin a dialogue and approach to problem solving…not with simplistic superficial political rhetoric!
If, he’s confident that ObamaCare will stand, why isn’t Obama running on ObamaCare for 2012? That’s all you need to know. He’s not running on ObamaCare or any of his past “successes” such as the equally bad Porkulus.
ObamaCare will follow Obama throughout 2012, although he doesn’t want to talk about it.
It should be struck down by the Supreme Court eventually. This is another good victory until then…
The Commerce Clause. Most of the SCOTUS jurisprudence on it in the last 80ish years should result in the hanging of the justices in the majority for treason.
2-1 is still too freaking close. What the hell was “1″ thinking??
Shorter Judge Marcus: “The government seized and expanded their unconstitutional powers fair and aquare, and has every right to expand upon them.”
He might as well have wrote that instead of the paragraph he did, which one wonders if he re-read it.