Key part of health law ruled unconstitutional

[Daniel]

Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional - CNN.com

(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional -- setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.

Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach" of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."

A federal judge in Virginia earlier this month had ruled in favor of the administration over the purchase requirement issue, mirroring conclusions reached by a judge in Michigan.

Hudson's ruling raised strong doubts about the government's authority to mandate the purchase of insurance coverage for individuals and employers.

Virginia officials had argued that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product -- like health insurance -- that they may not want or need. They equated such a requirement to a burdensome regulation of "inactivity."

Virginia is one of the few states in the country with a specific law saying residents cannot be forced to buy insurance.

"I am gratified we prevailed," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a conservative Republican elected in 2009. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."

Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March, after promoting Democratic-led health reform efforts for months after taking office. The law is widely considered to be the signature legislative accomplishment of the president's first two years in office.

Among other things, the measure was designed to help millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans receive adequate and affordable health care through a series of government-imposed mandates and subsidies. The federal government stated in court briefs that 45 million Americans last year were without health insurance, roughly 15 percent of the country's population.

Critics have equated the measure to socialized medicine, fearing that a bloated government bureaucracy will result in higher taxes and diminished health care services. About two dozen challenges have been filed in federal courts nationwide.

On November 8, the Supreme Court rejected the first constitutional challenge to the health care reform effort, resisting a California conservative group's appeal. The justices refused to get involved at a relatively early stage of the legal process.

The high court rarely accepts cases before they have been thoroughly reviewed by lower courts.

Legal experts say they expect several of the larger issues in the health care debate to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. A review from the high court may not happen, however, for at least a year or two.

The highest-profile lawsuit may come from Florida. State officials there have objected not only to the individual coverage mandate, but also to a requirement forcing states to expand Medicaid. Florida's litigation is supported by 19 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Health care reform -- a top Democratic priority since the Truman administration -- passed the current Congress in a series of virtual party-line votes. Opponent derisively labeled the measure "Obamacare." Republican leaders -- who captured the House of Representatives in the midterm elections -- have vowed to overturn or severely trim the law.

The 63-year-old Hudson was named to the bench in 2002 by former President George W. Bush. He is a former state and federal prosecutor.

"While this court's decision may set the initial judicial course of this case, it will certainly not be the final word," Hudson wrote in October.

The case decided Monday is Virginia v. Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188).

Discuss.

[Chucktshoes]

RICHMOND, Va.—A federal judge ruled Monday that a central plank of the health law violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration's signature legislative accomplishment.

In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

Rest of the story after the jump

Judge Sides With Virginia on Health Law - WSJ.com

[Daniel]

I beat you by a minute Chuck T.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, that's 2 fed judges for Ocare and 1 against, with maybe 15 more still to be heard.

Surely all of these don't have to play out, with their various appeals, before the Supremes hear it?

- OS

[JayC]

This case is most likely to make it to SCOTUS first... VA federal court system is know for it's speed... It might be before SCOTUS as early as next fall.

[wjh2657]

Many posters on these forums complain about the courts making decisions that run counter to their 2d Amendment aspirations, screaming that the courts exceed their power. Here is a classic case of why we have the courts and why they have those kind of powers. When the Executive and Legislative branches go off the deep end and violate the Constitution, the courts give them a reality check. A lot of people don't like the judicial system, but it has kept us from being ruled by tyrants and political party "elites" for over 200 years. In very recent decisions, the SCOTUS and many Federal Jurists have reined in the "folks on the hill." The system is not perfect, but it is way better than any other government system on earth.

[mav]

Still a ways to go, but definitely a step in the right direction.

[Chucktshoes]

I beat you by a minute Chuck T.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, that's 2 fed judges for Ocare and 1 against, with maybe 15 more still to be heard.

Surely all of these don't have to play out, with their various appeals, before the Supremes hear it?

- OS

I hope that's not how it works. I think it's going down in flames, anyway.

[Oh Shoot]

I hope that's not how it works. I think it's going down in flames, anyway.

Hard to know how it'll play out. Some "experts" opine that even if one part of the act is found unconstitutional, whole thing must be rescinded, some say only the offending portion would have to go, etc.

I hope it still matters in the total scope of things by the time it's actually settled. It could be pretty small change compared to other pressing concerns by then.

- OS

[Guest Letereat!]

Very encouraging news. I am however disapointed that our State is not among those listed in the fight. Does anyone know what Haslams position is on the whole matter. Is our State Government just gonna bend over and take it, or are we simply waiting for the "right moment" to join the fight?

[Guest CJK]

Hard to know how it'll play out. Some "experts" opine that even if one part of the act is found unconstitutional, whole thing must be rescinded, some say only the offending portion would have to go, etc.

The good news is that the so-called individual mandate, which Judge Hudson correctly found to exceed the powers given Congress via the Commerce Clause, is pretty much the linchpin of Obamacare, as it is the basis for much of the funding.

I hope it still matters in the total scope of things by the time it's actually settled. It could be pretty small change compared to other pressing concerns by then.

Prophetic. I too fear it may turn out that health care is the least of our worries by 2014 ...

[JayC]

Only downside to this ruling, it may force a lot of insurance companies to raise prices drastically, or cause them to go out of business altogether... Causing more Americans to loose health insurance, and the screams for a single payer system will be louder and louder which is what the democrats want.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm still hearing the idea that since there was no "severability" clause in the enacting legislation,

it could kill the entire law. I don't really know about that and it should still be repealed or

defunded until that's shown to be the case.

The judge did issue a warning to the administration that his ruling had to be overturned for

Obamacare to survive, in so many words. At least that's what I heard. I'm going to read his

whole decision. Someone(judge), at least, is on the people's side. That bill is wrought with

nothing but tyranny.

[MacGyver]

Judge Hudson touched on the lack of a severability clause in his comments. He didn't seem to think it was a problem, but I'm sure we'll see other litigation over it.

Having the individual mandate ruling upheld by the SCOTUS would essentially kill the whole thing. If they can't require everyone to get in the pool, then the bill literally falls apart.

[Guest uofmeet]

Something interesting I just thought about reading another thread.......not trying to hijack though, but say it does go to SCOTUS, and it is found unconstitutional, Could legal action be taken against the people who voted for this and the president since they did not uphold their oath to defend The Constitution of the United States of America? Or am I way out of left field on this?

[Oh Shoot]

...Could legal action be taken against the people who voted for this and the president since they did not uphold their oath to defend The Constitution of the United States of America? ...

If we still really had a Republic, sure, but we lost that long ago.

There are hundreds of congressmen who should have been hanged through the years, and many times that imprisoned -- too late now, as it has been considered business as usual for a long time.

- OS

Edited December 14, 2010 by OhShoot

[JayC]

We need a Constitutional Amendment, voting for any law that is later determined to be unconstitutional results in a 10 year prison sentence of any member of the government who voted for, signed, or enacted the legislation, and no possibility for election to public office for life.

But that will never happen

[Guest oldsmobile98]

Any bill that is hundreds of thousands of words long probably has something unconstitutional in it. Especially if almost no one read it.

If we still really had a Republic, sure, but we lost that long ago.

There are hundreds of congressmen who should have been hanged through the years, and many times that imprisoned -- too late now, as it has been considered business as usual for a long time.

- OS

Well said.

We need a Constitutional Amendment, voting for any law that is later determined to be unconstitutional results in a 10 year prison sentence of any member of the government who voted for, signed, or enacted the legislation, and no possibility for election to public office for life.

But that will never happen

I wish the original Constitution had included this. If the Federal Reserve debases the currency and we have to press the big red reset button (Constitutional Convention), we should make sure it goes in. Of course, we probably won't get a chance because we will have been annexed by the PRC.

There is an effort to make each bill cite the phrase of the Constitution that authorizes it, which is good. But they'll just end up citing the commerce clause, or the general welfare clause, or the necessary and proper clause for nearly every bill.

Edited December 15, 2010 by oldsmobile98

[Smith]

Something interesting I just thought about reading another thread.......not trying to hijack though, but say it does go to SCOTUS, and it is found unconstitutional, Could legal action be taken against the people who voted for this and the president since they did not uphold their oath to defend The Constitution of the United States of America? Or am I way out of left field on this?

No. They are immune from legal actions for legislative work.

[MacGyver]

Something interesting I just thought about reading another thread.......not trying to hijack though, but say it does go to SCOTUS, and it is found unconstitutional, Could legal action be taken against the people who voted for this and the president since they did not uphold their oath to defend The Constitution of the United States of America? Or am I way out of left field on this?

We need a Constitutional Amendment, voting for any law that is later determined to be unconstitutional results in a 10 year prison sentence of any member of the government who voted for, signed, or enacted the legislation, and no possibility for election to public office for life.

But that will never happen

I wish the original Constitution had included this. If the Federal Reserve debases the currency and we have to press the big red reset button (Constitutional Convention), we should make sure it goes in.

You guys should really take a moment to think about the implications of something like that. What happens when you are on the side of dissent? What happens when your law is voided and thus considered Unconstitutional on "vagueness"?

I'm all for getting better bills out there, but jailing people with dissenting opinions isn't the way to do it. Our country was in a sense built on dissent. We're big enough to handle it.

Take a bill like this "healthcare" bill making its way through the courts. Our forefathers gave us a system of checks and balances for that reason. Now we're going to see some of those checks play out.

Don't neglect the fact, however that we as individuals are the linchpins in the process. If you think your elected official or all elected officials are that corrupt, work to get them out of there. Don't just vote for someone else and hope other people do the same. Hold their feet to the fire. Publicly. Make them earn the right to represent us, and then make sure that they continue to do so.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Where the guys are pointing by saying that is that these so called politicians should already know

whether a bill would pass constitutional muster before it was submitted. It would take very little

to understand what the Constitution is saying if only the fools would bother reading it. It's quite

obvious that some of these politicians have a great hatred for this country and its Constitution.

We have been on the dissent side most of my life. It is time the left stayed on the dissent side

for several generations. If you force law on someone for decades and are allowed to just walk

away, something is wrong.

A little criminal quality time behind bars would do some good to the Barney Franks, Anthony Wiener's,

Chris Dodd's of the country.Just a few of my favorites. The unconstitutional acts those bastards

performed with US tax dollars justify what the previous gentlemen said.

[Guest oldsmobile98]

You guys should really take a moment to think about the implications of something like that. What happens when you are on the side of dissent? What happens when your law is voided and thus considered Unconstitutional on "vagueness"?

I'm all for getting better bills out there, but jailing people with dissenting opinions isn't the way to do it. Our country was in a sense built on dissent. We're big enough to handle it.

Take a bill like this "healthcare" bill making its way through the courts. Our forefathers gave us a system of checks and balances for that reason. Now we're going to see some of those checks play out.

Don't neglect the fact, however that we as individuals are the linchpins in the process. If you think your elected official or all elected officials are that corrupt, work to get them out of there. Don't just vote for someone else and hope other people do the same. Hold their feet to the fire. Publicly. Make them earn the right to represent us, and then make sure that they continue to do so.

Good post.

I don't believe JayC was talking about jailing ordinary folks with dissenting opinions.

As an American, anyone can be in favor of things are unconstitutional. They can vote for politicians who promise to implement unconstitutional things. They can protest and lobby in favor of the establishment of unconstitutional laws. They can start a publication trying to convince people that they should vote for politicians who promise to implement unconstitutional things.

None of these things is a crime.

But when a politician actually does cosponsor or vote for a bill that is unconstitutional, he is violating his oath to "support and defend" that document.

If he wants to change the Constitution, there is a way to do it: a Constitutional Amendment. Anyone who wants to go down that arduous road is welcome to do so.

But they shouldn't be able to just subvert it without changing it.

As of now, there is NO punishment for any politician who passes unconstitutional laws. If there were, politicians would actually think twice before introducing bills. Even if the punishment were only to be kicked out of public service for life. America would be more free.

When I weigh the public careers of a few hundred pols against the millions of Americans citizens who have been harassed and robbed by unconstitutional laws, the choice is obvious to me. The politicians signed up to be politicians; if they mess up, their jobs should be on the line. It's the same way for everybody else.

Just my bit of bloviation for the day. Thanks for reading.

[Guest oldsmobile98]

Where the guys are pointing by saying that is that these so called politicians should already know

whether a bill would pass constitutional muster before it was submitted. It would take very little

to understand what the Constitution is saying if only the fools would bother reading it. It's quite

obvious that some of these politicians have a great hatred for this country and its Constitution.

Well said!!

[MacGyver]

Originally Posted by 6.8 AR

Where the guys are pointing by saying that is that these so called politicians should already know

whether a bill would pass constitutional muster before it was submitted. It would take very little

to understand what the Constitution is saying if only the fools would bother reading it. It's quite

obvious that some of these politicians have a great hatred for this country and its Constitution.

That's where our opinions are different. I have no doubt that some of our politicians do in fact hold the Constitution in some contempt. I know that there are a few more, maybe a growing number, who think that somehow we have 'evolved'. That our Constitution was a great document to get us started, but we need something different now. Same thing with Capitalism. They think that it was necessary for a while, but now somehow we've evolved and need a more 'fair' socialist system.

I don't think these represent the majority, though. Rather, I think the terrible position we find ourselves in today is often the result of career politicians who couldn't begin to tell you what was in the Constitution beyond the First Amendment - and they might mangle that. Unfortunately, we don't require our elected officials to pass an eighth grade civics test before they are sworn in. They take the oath, but it's simply a precursor to eating cake and drinking punch. They don't really understand what that oath means.