In response to a lawsuit involving 26 states, Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled yesterday that ObamaCare as written is unconstitutional.
The ruling by Judge Vinson, a Reagan appointee in Pensacola, Fla., is the second legal ruling( the earlier one was in Virginia) to find that at least part of the law violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause because it requires the buying of insurance on penalty of a fine.
Judge Vinson's 78=page ruling stated that the entire law must be voided because the so-called individual insurance mandate is "not severable" from the rest of the law. What the judge was saying is that the requirement to purchase insurance, the so-called individual mandate is so much a backbone of the law that it is impossible for it to function without it.
The judge is entirely correct in that assumption in my opinion, and the Democrats know it, which is precisely why they failed to include a severability clause in the bill, which would have allowed certain portions to be voided without affecting the others. Without the 'share the wealth' mandate requiring everyone except Congress, certain high level Federal employees and well-connected unions and private companies able to get a waiver to participate, the whole shoddy edifice crumbles.
The Commerce Clause of our Constitution has had an interesting history. Its original purpose was to eliminate the interstate trade barriers that prevailed under the Articles of Confederation, the foreunner to the Constitution.
That was pretty much what the courts limited it to until the New Deal, when a Democrat dominated Congress began to inflate governmental regulatory power and the 8 Supreme Court justices and a slew of Federal judges appointed by 4 term President Franklin Delano Roosevelt inflated the clause out of all recognition.
In his opinion, Judge Vinson cited Wickard v. Filburn, a major 1942 case in which the Court ruled that even growing wheat for personal use was an activity covered under the Commerce Clause that justified federal restrictions on agricultural land use.
In court filings and testimony before the judge, the Obama administration had argued that requiring Americans to carry insurance was constitutional under the Commerce Clause that allows the federal government to regulate economic activity. It argued that the health-care market is unique since all Americans get medical care at some point and requiring them to buy insurance is just a way of regulating how they pay for it.
Judge Vinson used Wickard v. Filburn in response to this argument,noting that a no one can opt out of eating any more than they can from medical care: "Congress could more directly raise too-low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market."
Judge Vinson described ObamaCare as a "radical departure" from the Constitution and U.S. law. It is "not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted," he writes. "Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended."
Indeed not. But given the partisan nature of some of the justices on the Supreme Court, the final decision is going to come down to Justice Kennedy.
It will be interesting to see if Justice Elena Kagen properly recuses herself because of her role in arguing Obamacare in various court proceedings as Solicitor General.
5 comments:
As to how such a development would relate to healthcare services, if you make it too easy for people to access healthcare and too difficult for insurance companies to provide it, you will at the very least, cause a shortage of services. Without the regular balancing mechanism of price and profit, such needing to be free from government interference, you will see those in power assigning the scarce amount of services to selected groups.
When you are the President and 26 of 50 states are suing you over your signature policy, you have got some serious opposition!! This is especially so when considering the fact that your allies control the government bureacracy and the news media.
Also, factor in the fact that you are the first African American president in the nation's history. This gives inspiration to many people in all walks of
American life. Given this situation, the American people will close ranks around you like they would no one else in a similar situation should you be attacked.
All these things make challenging the Obama Administration a VERY dangerous proposition for any American political leader. Yet the leadership in 26 of 50 states are doing it. This suggests to me that this is VERY bad policy and the state governments are absolutely desparate to thwart this. In other words, they don't assume the risk associated with taking on Mr. Obama for sheer fun. Obviously they feel they've been backed against a wall and are desparate. What do they know that they aren't telling us?
That would be interesting to see if she does recuse herself, since the left-wing media is demanding that Scalia and Thomas do the same for various reasons, including teaching an educational course to Congress.
Great information, thanks for sharing this. I have been looking for it for a while now and it really helps me out and my website.
An encouraging step in the right direction, but so far from where we need to be. Also the Supreme Court quite frankly is scary. If they vote in favor of Obamacare, it shows we as a country are pretty much screwed for a long, long time.
Post a Comment