State of the State  |   Home  |   Ready

Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional (again)

This has to be one of the most horribly biased stories written by the AP (and that’s saying a lot), but here’s the gist:

Vinson ruled against the overhaul on grounds that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring nearly all Americans to carry health insurance

Outstanding.  It’s good to see the courts affirming what is obvious.

Posted by Owen at 1119 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - General

1. Guess that is what happens when you Rahm stuff through…

   Every other major piece of legislation has had bi-partisan support.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2011 at 1242 hrs
   
   
   

2. “The judge’s ruling produced an even split in federal court decisions so far on the health care law, mirroring enduring divisions among the public. “

   That’s a quote from the AP story (which is pretty terrible to read).  Really, I think that’s the most important part of the whole situation.  Nobody (public, legislators, judges) can decide one way or the other.  Eventually this will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, and unless a conservative justice retires, obviously the act will be found unconstitutional.

   I also think it’s very telling and sad that, in judicial rulings these days, the personal politics/philosophy of a judge almost exactly reflects the political support for his or her decisions.  Not the way the judicial branch is supposed to work, but then what isn’t divided on political lines these days?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2011 at 1709 hrs
   
   
   

3. Not to mention that Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion last June in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCOAB made his own (and the court’s) position on partial validation pretty clear.

   Petitioners’ complaint argued that the Board’s “freedom from Presidential oversight and control” rendered it “and all power and authority exercised by it” in violation of the Constitution. App. 46. We reject such a broad holding. Instead, we agree with the Government that the unconstitutional tenure provisions are severable from the remainder of the statute.

   “Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem,” severing any “problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 328–329 (2006). Because “[t]he unconstitutionality of a part of an Act does not necessarily defeat or affect the validity of its remaining provisions,” Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Okla., 286 U. S. 210, 234 (1932), the “normal rule” is “that partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course.”

   So complete invalidation would not only require consent from Kennedy (who typically plays it down the middle), but it would also require Roberts and the court to walk back its logic from June 2010.  The health care industry might not like the consequences but the individual mandate isn’t at all hard to repeal while leaving the remainder of the bill intact.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on February 01, 2011 at 1846 hrs
   
   
   

4. Don’t make me link to Obama’s stump speeches where he derided Hillary’s version of Healthcare, that included a mandate for coverage

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2011 at 1909 hrs
   
   
   

5. Don’t make me link to Obama’s stump speeches where he derided Hillary’s version of Healthcare, that included a mandate for coverage

   I’ll link it.

   Posted by hsgbdmama on February 01, 2011 at 2002 hrs
   
   
   

6. Complete invalidation would not require a walk back from the June 2010 decision.    In this case the government itself argued that the individual mandate was not severable.  Additionally, severability would require the court to then decide which parts of the bill depend upon the individual mandate, something Vinson decided exceeded his authority and ability.

   The supreme court, of course, recognizes no limit to its’ authority and abilities, so I suspect it will create some sort of Frankenstein bill which invalidates the individual mandate but leaves some sort of bill intact.    This approach would address Vinson’s correct assertion that this interpretation of the commerce clause would also create a Congress with unlimited power by essentially ruling that Congress power is limited and that the limit is determined by a Supreme Court with unlimited power, something more appealing to the court.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2011 at 2224 hrs
   
   
   

7. In this case the government itself argued that the individual mandate was not severable.

   Sure, they argued that. But I don’t think anyone believed it at the time, even the people making the argument. They played it that way because they thought it would help get it passed. I don’t see any reason at all the Court has to accept that argument.

   I’m also less cynical that they’ll carve up the law in their own way. I buy RS’s argument above. But will freely admit that doesn’t mean I’m right and I’ve been surprised by their rulings before so it wouldn’t be the first or last time.

   Now as to the practical, implementation argument, it’s a different story. Without the (unconstitutional) mandate, their numbers work even worse. It would be up to Congress to fix the rest of the law once that element is stripped. Hopefully a merciful death follows and they go back to work on health care reform the right way - with specific targeted laws to address the individual problems (portability, separating coverage from employment, addressing pre-existing conditions exclusion and rescission for starters). An omnibus, comprehensive solution that actually works is just not possible with our current political environment.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2011 at 2251 hrs
   
   
   

8. Here is a good press release from Liberty Counsel:

   http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1030

   Press Release

   January 31, 2011

   Florida Court Rules “Obamacare” Unconstitutional

   
   http://www.LC.org

   Pensacola, FL – Today Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, Florida, issued a 78-page ruling that the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is unconstitutional. This is a case brought by 26 states against the recent healthcare law and regulations.

   Judge Vinson stated in the ruling, “Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution…. I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate…. Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause,” the opinion reads.

   Currently the Health & Human Services website reports granting 733 waivers to ObamaCare. In addition, there are 12 states with pending legislation to outlaw ObamaCare, such as Idaho (HB 59), Indiana (SB 505), Maine (LD 58), Montana (SB 161), Nebraska (LB 515), New Hampshire (HB 126), North Dakota (SB 2309), Oklahoma (HB 1276), Oregon (SB 498), South Dakota (HB 1165), Texas (HB 297), and Wyoming (HB 0035). Many of these laws carry criminal penalties for government agents who try to enforce ObamaCare, according to the John Birch Society.

   Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver will present oral argument the week of May 10-13, 2011, at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner. Liberty Counsel represents Liberty University and two private individuals. On the same day, the court of appeals will also hear the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius.

   Staver commented, “Congress does not have unlimited authority to regulate private actions. If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to act, then Congress cannot act. No one wants the federal government or a pencil-pushing bureaucrat in Washington policing private medical decisions. No one wants IRS agents to become the health insurance police. The threat to liberty posed by the healthcare bill goes beyond healthcare. I am pleased with today’s ruling. This decision will add to our own case, which I will argue in May. The days of ObamaCare are numbered.”

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2011 at 0928 hrs
   
   
   

9. VAPolitico… Eventually this will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, and unless a conservative justice retires, obviously the act will be found unconstitutional.

   I would not be so sure.  Roberts and Alito are very pro-Federal power types of judges.  I see this law actually passing the Supreme Court, but with Thomas (for sure) and Scalia (very likely) being the lone dissenters.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2011 at 1953 hrs
   
   
   

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.