I know that there is a broad spectrum of reactions on the left to the individual mandate in Health Care Reform. Personally, I don’t like it, but I understand that it was included in the bill to attract Republican support, because it is a Republican idea, since disavowed. I also understand that it’s inclusion prevents people from waiting until they are sick to purchase insurance, driving up the rates for everyone else. I’m sure we can find another way to deal with that problem. Although I don’t like it, I do believe that it is legal under the Commerce Clause, and I’m not one of those hypocrites who interpret the law according to what I want it to be. Apparently the judge is.
The Department of Justice released a statement today saying that the government "strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional." The White House’s Stephanie Cutter blogged that this is a "plain case of judicial overreaching."
The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s “individual responsibility” provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain. And the judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision. This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge’s decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk….
We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts.
History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws — including the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act — were all filed and all failed. And contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.
In a background call, senior administration officials stressed that implementation of the Affordable Care Act will continue (Vinson did not issue an injunction) and the administration will appeal this decision and is confident of a reversal… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
Vinson also called his decision in the case “unique”, repeating the language of Bush v. Gore. Effectively this means that his ruling establishes no precedent. Lawrence O’Donnell covered the issue well interviewing Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and journalist Ezra Klein.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This law needs to be fixed. Adding a Medicare Option, available to all, would do most of the fixing in one step. That is a far better solution than starting over.
8 Responses to “Activist Republican Judge Rules HCR Unconstitutional”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I agree 100%. That %*#@! activist troublemaking judge should be impeached! If this thing goes to the Supreme Court and they give us another bogus 5-4 conservative decision, there ought to be rioting in the streets!
I would say intense demonstration including civil disobedience, but mot rioting.
Dude… how many times do I have to explain this to you? Under the common law, which does still exist(please have a gander at 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code), you cannot legally be forced into a contract. The commerce clause deals with how business is done across state lines. It doesn’t grant the Congress the power to force business to be conducted across state lines. If you’re still confused have another gander at a SCOTUS case US v Lopez wherein SCOTUS has a few important things to say about the applicablility of the commerce clause. I agree we should have health care in this country. But the way it’s being done flat out isn’t legal. Why can’t we just go about it legally? And how much time, effort and money has been wasted by not going about it legally the 1st time? All you’ve said is that the end justifies the means and that almost always works out bad.
Who’s Dude?
You obviously did not pay attention. I did not say the end justifies the means. I did say that, although I oppose the individual mandate, I do understand the reason for it and believe that it is legal. I also said we should find a better way to achieve the same ends. Romney’s Massachusetts HCR passed legal muster. Social security and Medicare premiums have passed legal muster. Requiring auto insurance has passed legal muster.
It’s clear that both US v Lopez and US v Morrison impose limits on the Commerce Clause – namely, that Congressional legislation must have a sufficiently close link with interstate commerce, and that it cannot pile inference upon inference to get there. In other words, Congress must actually be regulating interstate commerce, and not imposing legislation intended for some other purpose by trying to show an indirect connection with commerce.
When a court concludes that Congress is, in fact, regulating commerce – as PPACA clearly does – then PPACA is Constitutional by Article I, Section 8.
Ok.. 1 last time. There is no interstate commerce for Congress to regulate. You can’t force people to buy something under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. That’s a total non-sequitur. And your response (basically) continues to boil down to “it seems ok to me”. Congress can’t regulate commerce before there is any commerce in existence. What’s so hard to understand about that?
After you’ve reviewed Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich concerning what constitutes interstate commerce and what Congress can and cannot do under the Commerce Clause, get back to me.
Cletus, I did not say it seems OK to me. I said it seems LEGAL to me. It seems legal to me based on court precedent. See the cases Nameless brought up.