United States District Court Judge Roger Vinson has struck down the entirety of the National Health Care law (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) as unconstitutional. What is most interesting is his decision that the entire act had to be struck down because of the individual mandate provision’s unconstitutionality. Vinson grants declaratory relief but declines to grant injunctive relief.
Joined by governors and attorneys general from 26 states, the Florida challenge was broader than the recent Virginia challenge — that led to the striking down of the individual mandate provision. I have previously written about my own concerns over the constitutionality of that provision.
The decision of Judge Vinson will only increase the already high likelihood that the Supreme Court will review the controversy. The two major decisions in Virginia and Florida will be reviewed by two different courts of appeal. Two other rulings (supporting the law) are also moving toward the Supreme Court.
The rule also represents a rejection of the Administration’s effort to avoid review by challenging the standing of the state attorneys general. Ironically, I reviewed the Bond v. U.S. (09-1227) case in my Supreme Court class today. That case involves a woman who challenged her conviction on federalism grounds. The Third Circuit ruled that only states and state officials could challenge federal laws on federalism grounds. The Obama Administration (correctly in my view) switched sides before the Court and ended up arguing for the Bond that she did have standing. This could prove an important term on standing doctrine. The conservatives justices have been generally hostile to standing and have gradually carved out individuals and groups who can seek review of some laws.
Judge Vinson ruled that he could not treat the individual mandate provision as severable and thus (after agreeing with Judge Hudson in Virginia that the provision is unconstitutional) he struck down the entire act. He stated: Judge Roger Vinson said as a result of the unconstitutionality of the “individual mandate” that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be thrown out:
“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.”
The court notes that Congress elected not to include a severability clause despite the fact that one was in an earlier version of the law — setting itself up for such a total rejection of the law.
The decision is a strong expression of federalism, starting with Madison’s famous statement from the Federalist Papers 51:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over
men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next
place oblige it to control itself.
The problem is the lack of a limiting principle in the arguments in favor of the law. Vinson notes:
The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course
of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a
morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service
and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on
interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.
He notes the political pressure in the case: “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the
entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is
virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.”
In rejecting an injunction, the court indicates that declaratory and injunctive relief should be essentially fungible:
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly. Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980) (Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added). There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
I doubt the Administration will view it that way. They have two decision upholding the law and two rejecting the law on the district level. They are not likely to view themselves constructively enjoined.
Here is the entire decision by Judge Vinson: Vinson
Jonathan Turley
Raff,
Now, this is just an educated guess, but Jesus would probably just stare blankly for awhile and then try and figure out English. Probably get pretty freaked out by cars and electric lights for awhile too.
Tootie,
I’ll type it really slow so you can understand:
B-i-t-e m-e.
Blouise,
“Republicans will make as much noise as possible as they clang the “states rights” bell”
————————————————————–
State’s rights. I’m glad you brought that up, Blouise. Since state’s rights and the individual mandate are the main points of contention the GOP has with the ACA, I found the below article my sister sent me very interesting as it shows, once again, how the GOP picks and chooses what they want government in and out of:
Arizona lawmakers to consider adoption, divorce bills
Two controversial bills that failed to win enough support last year have returned to the Legislature this session.
Public hearings will be held Wednesday on bills that propose to give adoption preference to married couples and make it more difficult to get divorced. Both bills were brought by the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, which lobbies for conservative family issues.
Adoption bill
Senate Bill 1188, sponsored by Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, would require an adoption agency to “give primary consideration to adoptive placement with a married man and woman.” It permits the agency to consider a single person if, among other things, the child’s best interests require the adoption by a single person or if a married couple is not available and the alternative is extended foster care.
Currently, only Utah has a law requiring priority for married couples, though several other states have bans on adoptions by same-sex couples or by unmarried couples.
About one-third of the foster children adopted in Arizona are adopted by an unmarried person.
Opponents of the bill last year said they feared it would decrease the number of people willing to consider adopting children.
Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod argued last year that “a child deserves a chance to have a mom and a dad.”
Divorce bill
Senate Bill 1187, also sponsored by Gray, would allow someone going through a divorce to ask the court to extend the 60-day waiting period required before a divorce can proceed.
The request must include a reason for the request as well as either a plan for reconciliation or a counseling schedule.
The court can extend the waiting period up to 120 days.
This bill is slightly different than the one proposed last year, which would have extended the waiting period of all divorces to 180 days. Proponents of that bill said it would help decrease the number of divorces.
Opponents said extending the waiting period would be hard on children and could be dangerous for the other spouse in cases of domestic violence.
The Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee, which is chaired by Gray, will hold a public hearing on both bills at 9 a.m. Wednesday in Senate Room 3, 1700 W. Washington St., Phoenix.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/01/20110201arizona-adoption-divorce-bill.html#ixzz1CjKkSQkJ
While this is a state legislature, I think it is representative of the GOP as a whole.
They don’t want millions of people to have access to health care, but they want to force you to stay married. Go figure.
Tootie,
be honest now. WWJD?
rafflaw:
No.
James M:
The 1798 Act for seamen you refer to falls under the enumerated powers found in Article 1 Section 8 to raise armies, maintain a navy, and use all the necessary and proper laws needed to do so thereby. Congress, to its credit, has included the health care of those who were injured by congresses lawful power to raise armies and have navy.
Maria, Tommy, and Mary Sue, age 5, attending kindergarten in the fall are not in the military.
Therefore it is not a precedent for kindergartners, but only those serving in the military.
Tootie,
for you to call out someone for “not proving” their claim is like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, isn’t it?
Stam:
Your parents didn’t teach you stealing was wrong either?
(geeze, what a creepy world we live in these days)
ZOE BRAIN
You cannot just pull constitutionality out of your ear and pretend it is when you say:
“but on the whole, I think it is [constitutional]. Conceptually it is, even if the execution is not”.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT.
CITE VERBATIM which portion thereof allows for Obamacare.
ONLY THEN could you be sure.
And mind you, you have to know what the FRAMERS (the men who wrote or voted for the Constitution) thought that part of the document meant.
To know that you have to look up Elliot’s Debates or Ferrand’s Records (I’ve provided a link below).
And how do I know you have to read the debates and records of the ratification? No one less than the Father of the Constitution–James Madison– says you have to. Naturally, Democrats (Progressives), who have run the US public schools for about one hundred years made sure American school children NEVER saw these debates or records.
But I digress.
So we have records–documents–that refer to what the meaning of the words are in the Constitution and what the ratifiers believed them to mean.
Only evil usurpers (e.g. Democrats/progressives/Marxists) would like to pretend these meanings are complicated and beyond the understanding of commoners. And from this type of arrogance we get a bazillion SCOTUS rulings which ignore what the framers meant. As so for you to quote them, instead of citing the proper constitutional clause, is for you to compound their error.
The Anti-Federalist Americans (at the time of our founding) didn’t like the Constitution, especially the necessary and proper clause. This is because they felt it would be used to usurp power and become tyrannical.
No, no said the Madison. IMPOSSIBLE!
He writes in Federalist #44:
“Of …the “power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the FOREGOING POWERS, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof… no part can appear more completely invulnerable [to abuse].” [my emphasis]
Madison says there is no threat of abuse from the necessary and proper clause. And the words “foregoing powers” take the bite out of any potential abuse. All that is necessary and proper applies to a KNOWN quantity of powers and not an infinite quantity of unknown powers (as Obama and the Democrats imply).
And, Madison says, the clause is most viciously attacked by the Federalists. As it turns out the Anti-Federalists were right and Madison was wrong about the potential for abuse as now we Americans are on the verge of a federal totalitarian police-state that even reckons it has the power to tell us what to eat, how to light our lamps by our bedside, and recommend when we should die.
It is quite clear from the construction of the Constitution (and you can read Article 1 Section 8 for yourself), that the necessary and proper clause refers most DIRECTLY to the words above it in Article 1 Section 8. And NO WHERE in Article 1 Section 8 is there found the power for Obamacare.
Where do you see in Article 1 Section 8 words like “To provide all citizens with medical care”? If it ain’t there it ain’t anywhere, most certainly not in the Commerce clause.
It is not be found in the General Welfare clause either. And the power-granting structure of the term General Welfare appears at the very beginning of Article 1 Section 8 and refers to the enumerated powers in particular.
Where else can you find the power for Obamacare? No where. You, like the Democrats/filthy leftists, and Marxists are just making up crap.
Fortunately for me, the General Welfare clause also cannot justify Obamacare as the phase has an entirely different meaning than what evil Democrats (and all are evil) say. That term came DIRECTLY from the Articles of Confederation.
And the term “general welfare” was included in the Constitution for the express purpose of providing a MECHANISM/grant of power to pay for debts from the War of Independence from Britain or any other debts incurred by the Federal government in the future for running the general government as outlined in the Constitution.
Thus the term “general welfare” has nothing to do with welfare or social programs as the
filthy leftists,murderous Marxists, Democrats pretend.I would like to quote here from Brutus (an Anti-Federalist). The Anti-Federalists were those to whom the Federalist Papers were often directed. And, to the Anti-Federalists everlasting credit, the Bill of Rights was added to the US Constitution.
Brutus writes in Anti-Federalist #1
“This government is to possess absolute and UNCONTROULABLE [SIC] POWER, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared “that the Congress SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS, AND ALL OTHER POWERS VESTED IN THIS CONSTITUTION…”
I capitalized the above important words. Brutus says because of the necessary and proper clause, the new government would become, essentially, EVERYTHING they had just fought a war to get rid of: absolute power (i.e. uncontrollable). Brutus was right or else America wouldn’t be in the trouble it is in.
Madison says there will be checks and balances against usurpers (Federalist 44):
“If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] … the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts…”
By the way, you do understand that Madison here presumes government officials can be evil? Okay? Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
He says the usurpation by congress can be stopped by the president (but Obama didn’t stop it since he signed the law) or the judiciary. And that is going on right now as seen in yesterday’s court case and the soon to be case before SCOTUS.
Madison again:
“…and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.” (Note again: the usurpers in question are very evil people called: government officials).
Madison says here that if the president AND the judiciary fail to stop the ursurpation of Congress, the power to check the abusers falls to the people through their legislators to annul the acts of the former legislators who abused their power. (That is what Rand Paul and Congressman Bachmann are busy doing).
Most at this blog are condemning the GOP for resorting to what Madison said the people ought to resort to when our leaders usurp: change over to legislators who will stop the usurpation.
Madison writes in Federalist 43 about what happens if all else fails and the usurpers take control and proper legislators cannot be found in office. But before he gets to what remedy the people ultimately have, he refers to the Confederation–our form of government which existed AFTER the “Revolutionary” War and before the Constitution.
He writes:
“A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.”
In the above, Madison says the Confederation was too easy to break apart if any one member violated another member. Thus the whole confederation would collapse because of the law of contract.
He continues:
“Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the multiplied and important infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits.”
He is asking how will the offended state be able to assert its claims if the rest cannot address the “infractions” lodged against it by others? He is saying without a stronger federal government, the weaker members will not be able to make their case to the other members and disunion will occur. He is even saying a rebellious state cannot be stopped.
He is saying that the time has come to make it not so easy for the confederation of states to break apart. And a “veil” should be drawn over this idea.
Why should it be drawn?
Because, Madison says:
“The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate.”
Things had changed.
What changed?
What changed was that The Articles of Confederation had proven to be ineffective in protecting the states from foreign enemies and from attacking each other. It proved itself ineffective to maintain unity.
Madison goes deeper into the matter of breaking up a group of states (now the former colonial states). This time, he peers into the future with a quick glace to the past, including the recent violent past (one of the things behind the veil).
“The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it.”
This is indeed delicate.
Delicate it refers to hard feelings existing at the time between the various post-colonial states and,among other things, overthrowing tyrants which the founders themselves did.
Very delicate indeed.
Madison and those who promoted the new government were indeed providing a “flattering prospect” (hypothetically) which forbids him and they from being “overcurious” about discussing it.
Overcurious about discussing what?
REBELLION AGAINST TYRANTS! NULLIFICATION! SECESSION! And every other thing the founders themselves participated in and everything that was beginning to happen all over again because the Articles of Confederation were not able to stop them!
LOL
Quick! Cover it with the veil! =)
Madison then writes:
“It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself.”
What is one of those cases?
I believe Madison is suggesting that another generation to come may have to do what THEY did: overthrow those who themselves are trying to overthrow the rights of the people. And to avoid this disunion or secession, he says: vote for the Constitution and the individual states will be protected from wrong.
In the framers’ and founders’ minds were etched The Rights of Englishmen as coming to them from a great tradition going back to the Magna Charta. As coming from Lex Rex. And as coming from Vindicae Contra Tyrannos. All these documents were read widely and voraciously by the founding generation and THESE DOCUMENTS AS READ BY THE FOUNDING GENERATION FUELED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THROWING OFF TYRANTS.
It is absurd to believe Madison had suddenly forgot all these great documents which underlay the “rebellion” he participated in. And this “rebellion” is also part of the delicate matter Madison wishes to cover with the veil.
And as you know, a veil is frail fabric which you can still see through to that which you are covering. He is most certainly not suggesting the delicate matter below the veil be buried. He is only asking that they not look at it too closely while they (and we) try an experiment: the Constitution.
But he in no wise cuts off for us the same opportunity he himself took to throw off tyrants, though Democrats act like he would.
This probably explains why Democrats have made sure American school children do not know about all these many documents I refer to. These filthy leftists (fresh from their baths) have a Marxist nirvana or totalitarian police state to impose on us all and they do not want WE modern Americans to know what truths THOSE past Americans knew about the unalieanble right to throw them off.
Madison again:
“The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected…”
Madison here goes BEYOND the Constitution about what we owe each other morally and what our humanity brings us. In this case what we owe each other isn’t health care through the federal government or else it would be listed in the Constitution above the phrase “necessary and proper”.
Thus the individual states or individuals themselves owe health care to their own families. I owe it to my offspring. That is the humane thing I can do. And if I can do more, I ought to but the government has no right to force it on me at gunpoint.
At the most, my local state (Maryland or Texas, for example) owes to me. If the feds owed it to us it would have been PUT in the Constitution. And the only way it can ever lawfully be there in the future is through an amendment to the Constitution.
Madison says:
“…whilst considerations of a common interest, and, ABOVE ALL, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion…”(my emphasis)
Ah, the remembrance of the “endearing scenes which are past,”. It’s 1788. The war was from 1775 to 1783. It’s only five years later when Madison writes those words. This probably refers to the interim peace and relative unity after war, and even the victory of throwing off tyrants (and the bloody force used to make it so). But now there are “obstacles” to “reunion” and further endearing scenes.
Therefore Madison urges: vote for the Constitution.
The reason for it is to avoid further conflict. But inherent in the suggestion is that further conflict in the future is not worrisome because the Constitution poses no threat. And if it did then, Madison says that will become
“…one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself.”
In other words, if all that Madison promises to us to protect us from tyranny fails, then, we, like Madison, have the right to rend that veil and take off the chains of our oppressors however it may have to be done.
If Democrats don’t stop acting like King George III it is to this “delicate” subject that they stupidly insist on taking us.
And this “delicate” subject of throwing off despots is why Obama is stepping on the gas to turn American into a totalitarian police state.
He sees the writing on the wall.
He knows most of the people do not want to be enslaved to Marxism or tyrannical and absolute arbitrary power. Yes, the Democrat rank and file want it, but they want it only because they are stupid enough to beg for slavery to the state. And they do richly deserve slavery and despotism. But I don’t. And so I dissent from it and wish to remind my fellow citizens of the blessed heritage of our rights as they come down to us through the centuries even before we were a country.
And Obama sees the writing on the wall while he hypocritically lectures Egyptian officials about the “rights” of the people.
One stop shopping for all pertinent information regarding this post is found here (until Obama and the Democrats can hide it):
http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos can be found there too:
http://www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm
“Tootie
1, January 31, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Dr Rosemary:
After you are done waving your magic wand over the wishing well, consider this. Where in the Constitution does it say the government has power to do Obamacare?
And you do realize that what you are suggesting is that government go to your neighbor’s house, stick a gun in his face, and demand money to pay for someone elses health care?
How did you come up with such a crazy idea?
Did you parents ever teach you that stealing was wrong?”
————————————————————-
If I didn’t tell you today, allow me to now:
Is being a disrespectful and obnoxious turd something new for you or is it just inherent to your nature? Don’t bother answering – I’ll go with the latter as opposed to the former. Christian, my ass.
————————————————————-
Dr. McHugh,
Well said. Thank you for your perspective.
It will be interesting to see how the standing issue shakes out. My guess is the non-state litigants will not have the money or will to force these decisions up the court system and file a successful petition. that is unfortunate, as individuals who are directly affected ought to have the right to enforce constitutional limitations on legislative action.
It is surprising how the legal decisions in both Florida and Virginia follow a very similar analysis. The slight difference in conclusion appears tied to representations made by counsel for the government in the Florida case.
My initial legal analysis can be found at:
http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/01/virginia-and-florida-healthcare-rulings.html
Doing the work of the master…..the devil de orange….
Well said Mike S.
Nice catch Elaine. This Vinson guy is looking less and less “impartial” the more I read about him.
Amen to rcampbell’s comments. It does amaze me that for such Christian people, so they claim, they just can’t seem to shake the money changer label.
Frankly I’d be dead right now without Medicare and my secondary health care insurance. I couldn’t have afforded any of the procedures that have kept me alive, nor the drugs I must take for the rest of my life. As I lay in my hospital room the week following my transplant I saw the news story about a much younger man in Arizona, his wife and three young children. He had been approved for a transplant, but the State refused to pay for it. I’ve been saved by the luck of the draw and he probably will die. Anyone whose heart isn’t moved by this man’s plight is a consciousless bastard, who cares only for themselves and those close to them (maybe not even those close to them). If they pretend to be religious they are total hypocrites. If they think of themselves as ethical they are also hypocrites. The accessibility of adequate health care should be a right of every human. Those who don’t think so also
then believe that wealth or circumstance should be the arbiter of who lives or dies.
To those so happy with this ruling it is but one small aspect of a much larger battle. The battle which will decide if we are to live in a just society, or if most of us become serfs to the wealthy and powerful. What is ironic here is that so many of the posters so happy with the ruling, will find themselves, loved ones and/or friends crushed under the weight of out of control health care and blame the wrong people for their misery. I don’t wish this on anyone, yet I too was once healthy and strong and I know how quickly that can change in a persons life.
As far as the constitutionality of this current law, I have no real opinion, since this is not the law I would have wanted passed anyway. However, for the pre-existing conditions part and other aspects alone relief was needed.
Per Tootie:
Uh, some of the mains reasons we all have to pay for 40 million uninsured are:
1) government forces hospitals to treat all patients
2) greedy Democrats refuse to donate to these needy people (George Soros and Warren Buffet alone could cover most of these costs).
1) Yeah, we certainly wouldn’t want to treat all sick people. We should allow for-profit insurance company and for-profit hospital bureaucratsies to decide who gets treated, who lives and who dies. BTW, the law reequiring all patients be treated was signed by that dirty atheistic pinko commie, Ronald Reagan, in 1986.
I find it particularly appalling that Tootie claims to be a Christian and yet acts in the most outrageously non-Christian manner. Christ preached essentially the Democratic Party platform of caring for the sick, the aged and the poor. Poor examples of being a Christian, such as Tootie, want to impose their religion on our secular government (of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE), but don’t want the government to act in a Christian way toward those PEOPLE.
2) Ever at the ready with either the wrong answer or flailing rhetoricly when caught without a coherent argument, Tootie doesn’t want the government to require healthcare insurance from the for-profit insurance industry and is perfectly willing to selectively reject the tried and true conservative mantra of personal resposibility and to even decide who should pay the bill.
Ya gotta love the humor and the irony of a conservative using a ridiculous phrase like “greedy Democrats”. That’s always been the complaint against Democrats: that we’re greedy, stingy selfish………….
Here’s a Think Progress (1/31/2011) post worth reading:
Tea Party Judge Roger Vinson ‘Borrows Heavily’ From Family Research Council To Invalidate Health Law
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/31/vinson-frc/
Excerpt:
The most surprising part of Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling was his argument that the individual mandate was not severable from the health care law as a whole and must therefor bring down the entire Affordable Care Act. “In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably ‘evident,’ as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently,” Vinson writes.
But a closer read of his analysis reveals something peculiar. In fact, as Vinson himself admits in Footnote 27 (on pg. 65), he arrived at this conclusion by “borrow[ing] heavily from one of the amicus briefs filed in the case for it quite cogently and effectively sets forth the applicable standard and governing analysis of severability (doc. 123).” That brief was filed by the Family Research Council, which has been branded as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
Bdaman, you didn’t answer my question. Based on the four corners of my posting do you have an answer regarding equity of treatment for unions v non-union?
This is another one of the divisive issues that Republicans used in their push for offices at the state level in 2010. They will continue touting the issue through 2012 simply for the divisive effect. In the end Obama will triumph and the mandates will hold but the Republicans will make as much noise as possible as they clang the “states rights” bell. And we all know what they are really saying with that “states rights” jargon.
They are very quiet about the issues they really want to get through their states’ legislatures. The right hand may be waving the “states rights” flag … watch closely to see what the left hand is doing for there is the real danger.
Bdaman: “It failed. There is no stability in the insurance market. Rates are going up and they are dropping people.”
—-
What Rafflaw said.
The failure of the new law, or any law to effectively limit the % of increase is the fault. Give any rapacious business a couple of years to raise prices after telling them that things will change in a couple of years is an invitation to steal. Why am I not surprised this happened? And it’s a gift that keeps giving because a couple of years from now we, taxpayers will be paying the difference between buyers maximum cost in targeted groups and the cost of the insurance as offered. Gee, it’s a shame no one in government saw this coming and prevented it.
Bdaman,
you are being intellectually dishonest to suggest that the waivers that have just been given over the last several months are responsible for insurance cost rising. The insurance companies were jacking up the prices 10-50% before “Obamacare” was passed. They are doing what they know best and that is to screw the little guy. If you want cheaper prices, tell your Republican friends that you want a public option or a Medicare for all plan. By the way, there is stability in the insurance market. The insurance companies are making millions and they are doing what they have done in the past. So where is the instability?