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
Oh, Tootie:
Stam:
“I’m wondering why you are so interested in butts, asses, and things in ones underwear and how you think they apply to constitutional disquisitions. And, if you were talking about cigarettes and mules, I’m still not sure what you mean.”
First, I said you’re all butt-hurt, meaning, your fragile ego is shattered because you have been called out – repeatedly – for the American Taliban you are. It’s a saying. Just as my saying “Christian my ass.” It’s a saying. If you want to focus on things that simply aren’t there, go for it. You injected sexuality into it, and shows that you have your own deep-seated issues with asses. That, lady, is a personal problem for you.
“I take it then, that you haven’t any evidence that Obamacare is constitutional and therefore you need to discuss things in peoples’ underwear?”
Why would I bother telling you what numerous people here have already told you – repeatedly? Your lack of comprehension is, again, a personal problem for you. And, I never said anything about things in peoples’ underwear, pervert.
“Has it always been that way for you? And didn’t anyone tell you that it is rather creepy? Never mind. No need to answer. I don’t want the answer.”
Too bad. I’m answering. You tell me if it’s creepy, Toots. I wouldn’t know because I’m not a degenerate like you are. You are the one injecting sexuality into this, not me. That speaks to your own repressive view of sexuality. Again, personal problem.
“The conclusion can now be drawn: you cannot demonstrate that Obamacare is constitutional.”
I’m not a fan of repetiveness. I think the fine folks here have done an ample job of beating you over your cavernous head with your own psychotic-babblings. Sorry, Taliban, I simply cannot kick a person when they are down.
“I will not ask you questions that apply to anything outside your panties; and since I most certainly will not be asking you ANY questions whatsoever about what is in them, no matter how desperately you need to discuss them, you can be sure there will no more questions at all coming your way.”
Tootie, I could really give a shit if you ask me questions or not. 99.9% of the time, your questions aren’t worth answering anyway. Further, you are the one obsessing over panties, degenerate.
“I have shown very well the case for constitutionality and you have magnificently proven your case for undies, butts, and asses.”
If the nonsense you spew is your “proof”, it’s a good goddamned thing you’re not an attorney, Taliban.
“Surely someone, somewhere, must be proud of you.”
My whole family’s proud of me, as I am of them. Thanks for noticing, Tootie bin Laden.
Buckeye,
Thanks for the link!
*****
rafflaw,
You’re off by a century. I think you meant they’d like to take us back to the 18th Century.
Buckeye,
The Republicans are trying to take us back to the 19th Century. I will be anxiously waiting to see how the appeals turn out. I think that this Vinson guy is dirty. Just my opinion, but it doesn’t add up. I think we need to see how well Tony Perkins knows Judge Vinson.
Elaine M.
From The Atlantic:
“It is difficult to imagine,” Judge Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling, “that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”
Tea Party analogy? Check. Head-scratching analysis? Check. Judge Vinson wrote:
“… the mere status of being without health insurance, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce (not ‘slight,’ ‘trivial,’ or ‘indirect,’ but no impact whatsoever) — at least not any more so than the status of being without any particular good or service. If impact on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero. Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce.
The uninsured can only be said to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce in the manner as described by the defendants: (i) if they get sick or injured; (ii) if they are still uninsured at that specific point in time; (iii) if they seek medical care for that sickness or injury; (iv) if they are unable to pay for the medical care received; and (v) if they are unable or unwilling to make payment arrangements directly with the health care provider, or with assistance of family, friends, and charitable groups, and the costs are thereafter shifted to others.”
Got that? The uninsured can only have a “substantial effect on interstate commerce” — and thus be regulated by Congress — if they are subject to the precise conditions which exist today all over the country, and which prompted the Act in the first place. The judge acknowledges this point, to his credit, saying that the Congress would of course have the power to regulate the millions of people who meet his five criteria above. But he then concludes: “But, to cast the net wide enough to reach everyone in the present, with the expectation that they will (or could) take those steps in the future, goes beyond the existing ‘outer limits’ of the Commerce Clause” (emphasis in original).
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/judge-vinsons-health-care-smackdown-whats-a-tea-party-without-tea-leaves/70560/
As rafflaw and I discussed, they are trying to lay the groundwork to negate everything in civil rights laws that rely on the Commerce clause to be deemed constitutional. This is a big broadside. SCOTUS ruling in this will determine whether all progress in the past 60 years will collapse.
Tootie,
“What ever happened to be fruitful and multiply? Oh, that’s an evil plan indeed! Shame on Jehovah!”
I know you meant it as sarcasm, but there’s a saying about a broken clock that applies.
Mike:
There you go again inadvertently talking about black people. Or perhaps overlooking that they exist? You do realize that the Bible belt is also the Black belt? And you do realize that blacks have a higher birth rate AND abortion rate than whites? Are you now going to tell me all blacks are Christians and that explains it?
Christians, as you ought to know, tend to understand they are responsible for their own children. So even if they are copulating out of wedlock and/or having babies they cannot afford by your reckoning shouldn’t they all be Democrats? No, You probably believe they are GOPers. So you kinda defeat your own argument.
You cannot have it both ways. Either these fundies you refer to are rutting like pigs and demanding health care OR they are rutting like pigs and not demanding health care. And I tell you what ever they are doing, most of them are not Democrats.
Blacks have more unintended pregnancies than whites and all other groups. What are you going to blame that on if not Christianity? Being black?
In your effort to slam Christians did you slam blacks and even Hispanics? Are blacks sitting around demanding their wimmen stay bare-footed too?
You need to get out of your old, decrepit, lefty, rut and read some new data, new studies, and new political analysis. The old falsehoods you learned in the 60s are being smashed to bits by the internet.
What ever happened to be fruitful and multiply? Oh, that’s an evil plan indeed! Shame on Jehovah!
Blood? Blood! On whose hands? You don’t fool me or Jehovah.
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/080123_nd.htm
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html
Stam:
I’m wondering why you are so interested in butts, asses, and things in ones underwear and how you think they apply to constitutional disquisitions. And, if you were talking about cigarettes and mules, I’m still not sure what you mean.
But that’s okay, I simply don’t expect more from you.
I take it then, that you haven’t any evidence that Obamacare is constitutional and therefore you need to discuss things in peoples’ underwear?
Has it always been that way for you? And didn’t anyone tell you that it is rather creepy?
Never mind. No need to answer. I don’t want the answer.
The conclusion can now be drawn: you cannot demonstrate that Obamacare is constitutional.
I will not ask you questions that apply to anything outside your panties; and since I most certainly will not be asking you ANY questions whatsoever about what is in them, no matter how desperately you need to discuss them, you can be sure there will no more questions at all coming your way.
I have shown very well the case for constitutionality and you have magnificently proven your case for undies, butts, and asses.
Surely someone, somewhere, must be proud of you.
“If dumb leftists would stop copulating like rutting pigs long enough to realize they couldn’t afford their dear little piglets”
Tootie,
At least get your diatribes right. The highest rate of unwanted children being born is in the South and particularly the Bible Belt. People of my ilk are the ones acting responsibly. In my own case my parents taught me early about sexuality and the need not to reproduce children that were unwanted. The highest birth rates of legitimate children are among fundamentalists of all faiths and that is mainly because of two factors.
1. They have no idea what sex is about and the men think it’s all about them. Their idea of womanhood is to keep them barefoot, pregnant, but also working and doing the chores. It’s an evil, hateful cycle perpetrated by people who falsely believe they know anything about morality.
2. They oppose birth control and sex education, but then talk about the sin of abortion. It is because of this that the anti-abortion movement has blood on their hands.
Tootie:
How bad do I feel that you are all butt-hurt. Poor, Tootie. You can dish it out but you can’t take it. Awwww.
As you can tell, I’ve had just enough of the bile you vomit. Therefore, I don’t feel bad at all – you are reaping what you’ve sown, missy. Build yourself a bridge and get over it.
I must give you kudos for being honest, for once: ” I must be the idiot.”
Honesty is so refreshing – cleanses the soul!
Tootles,
You don’t have to admit something you demonstrate daily, but it is nice for a change.
Woosty:
What choice is there? I must be the idiot. You are all knowing.
Nothing more needs to be discussed.
Stam:
Usurping the Constitution is no small event and condemning isn’t petty, but your incessant personal attacks on me are.
You accuse me of being petty but it is you who is stooping to nasty personal insults. It isn’t going unnoticed by reasonable people.
Where is the proof that Obamcare is Constitutional? Or did you forget (while slashing around in your ocean of venom against me) what the topic was?
Here: I give you a new shovel and pail and invite back into the sandbox. You can sit in that corner over there and I will sit in this one.
And now, your proof that the Constitution allows for Obamacare. Where is it?
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).
—————————————————–
Tootie, you only said this to piss people off right?
you couldn’t REALLY be that big of an idiot could you?
BLIZZARD!
Watch out Chicago and elsewhere.
If you are sitting about posting comment you might want to be about making provisions instead.
“rafflaw 1, February 1, 2011 at 11:15 am
Well said Mike S.<-May I add TOUCHE! to that.
Nice catch Elaine. This Vinson guy is looking less and less “impartial” the more I read about him."
And don't forget:
"Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform. You don't say!"
"impartial [ɪmˈpɑːʃəl]
adj
not prejudiced towards or against any particular side or party; fair; unbiased"
Make that “you ARE”
Tootie:
“Did you stomp off from the sandbox with your pail and shovel yesterday?”
————————————————————–
Ha! This from the woman who passes off pettiness as a “christian virtue.”
By the way, I talked to Jesus last night and he told me to tell you that while he does love you, he still thinks your an asshole.
Have a nice day, Toots.
rafflaw:
What would Jesus do about what?
From what I understand Jesus has already done everything he needs to do.
But, I would be interested in your specifics.
Stam:
Did you stomp off from the sandbox with your pail and shovel yesterday?
campbell 1, February 1, 2011 at 9:07 am
You wrote:
“Yeah, we certainly wouldn’t want to treat all sick people. We should allow for-profit insurance company and for-profit hospital bureaucratsies [sic] to decide who gets treated, who lives and who dies. BTW, the law reequiring [sic] all patients be treated was signed by that dirty atheistic pinko commie, Ronald Reagan, in 1986.”
I’m not a Republican and I don’t care that Reagan enacted unconstitutional laws except that I don’t like unconstitutional laws.
Nor do I believe I have the right to stick a gun in your face and force you to hand over your money to take care of someone elses medical care. I expect the same from you especially if you continue to presume you are more decent than me.
rcampbell:
“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.”
Yours is a stupendously ignorant statement. If you really do know better than that, then I would have to say you are malicious lair. Christ NEVER EVER suggested that government should help the poor and you ought to prove your ignorant statement right here before everyone: Please cite the passages from the Bible in which Christ tells government to help the needy with their medical needs.
I’ll save you time, you won’t find such a passage.
The verses you refer to is Christ telling the church (Christian believers) to handle it, not the state. I find it amusing when leftists that leftists are always whining about separation of church and state, but they get all pious and religious when they think they might benefit personally from joining church to state if it meant they could fleece the rich for the leftists own profit.
Only the Marxists may make profits!
No, no. Christ asked CHRISTIANS to help the poor, sick, and needy THROUGH the CHURCH (not the state). The state was murdering the Christians at that time!
There has been no religion or private organization in the history of the world who has helped the needy like the church has. They have run hospitals for over a millennium. If the depraved, wicked, godless folks and critics had helped the Christians long ago with their blessed efforts things wouldn’t have gotten so bad.
Where were the leftists Warren Buffett and Bill Gates all during the time when Christians were providing for the poor and needy all these years? Lobbying government to rob from the middle class to do it instead?
rcampbell:
“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.”
According to you I am NOT the people precisely because I am a Christian.
Thus you are irrational to the extreme.
rcampbell:
“Ever at the ready with either the wrong answer or flailing rhetoricly [sic] 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 [sic] and to even decide who should pay the bill.”
Oh, the furies forbid we be responsible! Somehow, I don’t think even a Marxist would suggest we not be responsible.
I’m not sure what you are blathering about hysterically in that last paragraph but I assure you that I do not oppose people being responsible for health care. I am responsible for my offspring’s health care and never thought otherwise. And to accuse me of not being responsible for it would be a lie.
If dumb leftists would stop copulating like rutting pigs long enough to realize they couldn’t afford their dear little piglets, I presume we wouldn’t be in such a mess. I’m not the one being irresponsible here. I’m taking care of my own as best I can, and I’m sorry if it doesn’t meet your standards.
And, of course, it might be real stupid of someone to think I WASN’T in need of a hand out for medical care myself. Of course, I don’t approve of robbery by government to see to it that I have it. So I would be appalled if government stole on my behalf and I would be furious if I was forced by law into their criminal enterprise.
And it would be real stupid of someone to think I didn’t believe the states had the power to run health care systems, they do.
rcampbell again:
“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………….”
Greedy is the nicest word I use to describe Democrats. The more accurate word is thieves. That refers to people who think other peoples’ money belongs to them and take it illegally. What stupid people often do not realize is that poor people can be greedy and rich people benevolent. To presume that every one who is poor is virtuous or that many of them are not greedy is stupid.
In a pure Democracy the many poor could vote to plunder the few rich and steal all their money (because it just seems right to do so). But isn’t right. It is immoral. It is always immoral.
As immoral as wealthy people who do not help the poor.
(note: I support fully funding Medicare until it can be abolished through attrition.)