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
From TPMDC (2/2/2011)
Reagan Solicitor General Says Health Care Is Constitutional (VIDEO)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/reagan-solicitor-general-says-health-care-is-constitutional.php?ref=fpb
Excerpt:
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Ronald Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried said that even though he believes that there are lots of problems with the Affordable Care Act, he’s “quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional.”
Fried, now a Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, told the committee in his opening statement that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate, which is precisely what the law signed by President Barack Obama does.
“To my mind, that is the end of the story,” Fried said. “The mandate is a rule. More accurately, it is part of the system of rules by which commerce is to be governed.”
“The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against — the liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too much,” Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney.
Tootie
@Buckeye:
Do you have an example of what “civil rights laws” (connected to the Commerce Clause) would be rolled back if SCOTUS upholds yesterday’s decision?
—————————————
All of them would be in danger of negation. It’s like saying all people would have to be discriminated against in employment for the civil rights law against discriminaiton in employment to be constitutional.
“It’s really ironic to see progressives defending a mandate to give money to the insurance companies.”
I know but seems more reasonable, after years of petitioning and pushing for single payer , in light of the oppositions desire to scorch and torch, to get SOMETHING on the books with the hopes that it can be modified to better those in need. My understanding (tell me if you disagree) is that if we have a reversal then it will be years (and a hugely dispirited population) before the topic is even broached again….
Tootie
1, February 2, 2011 at 7:35 am
Blouise:
Holy Toledo what? Did I make a factual error about the black family? Or about leftist’s role in destroying it with welfare and sexual revolution (and abortion)?
==================================================
Yes, several, but Mike S in his post today at 5:35p pointed out most of them.
Having met some real bigots in my day and carrying the physical scares a few of them inflicted on my body, I am careful how loosely I throw the word around but Tootie, that Holy Toledo was most sincere for I was truly appalled at the things you wrote in that post.
I have no idea if you honestly believe the thoughts you write on this blog or if you are just messin’ with the folk but it doesn’t really matter because irregardless of the motivation, you are beyond the pale.
“In my world view everyone is evil. And there is evidence from the Bible and from nature.
Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Tootie,
You have been so active with your misanthropy that I hardly know where to begin, so let’s start with your above 3 quotes from the Torah in Genesis. Jews wrote the Torah, not Christians. Jews do not believe in original sin. Jews do not believe in the inherent evil of the human race. Some Christians do believe in that inherent evil. Jesus certainly didn’t if the Gospels are proof of his teachings. So where did this come from?
When Constantine became emperor of Rome he needed the help of the Legion’s (Roman Army)fast growing Christian sect. He called the Council of Nicaea (c.320 CE)to put together a Christian canon. Many of the Bishops he relied on, because they were loyal to him, were actually Gnostics. Gnostics do believe that humanity is evil, but there is no evidence that Jesus was a Gnostic, or believed such. There’s much more to the story, but its’ up to you to inform yourself, or to remain ignorant of your faith. I just wish that you’d get it right, rather than quoting that which you know nothing about, except what some Preacher taught you in Sunday School. I am not evil and I reject your belief than humankind is essentially evil.
The biggest problem with that evil formulation is that it lets people off the hook for the evil they do. It also can lead to a nihilistic attitude because if everything is evil, what does it matter? From that comes the conception of Hell and thus the teaching that you must give your heart to Jesus to avoid it and have your sins absolved. It also leads to another pernicious thread and that is if the world is evil, that we can wreak any havoc we want on its ecology. By the way Constantine supposedly only accepted Jesus on his death bed, after a lifetime of murderous and autocratic rule and what do you know he became a Saint.
“But it seem that with Mike S. when Christians have a lack of education it appears to be an evil thing. And when it happens to blacks it seems to be a thing to pity.” (Tootie)
There is no where in my posts where I specifically said that when Christians have a lack of education they are evil. When ignorant and bigoted Christians, such as yourself, make statements about things they’ve never explored beyond listening to sources they already agreed with, then in my opinion they are ignorant. As I previously posted, obviously too long ago for you
to remember, ignorance has nothing to do with education. Given that, I can only infer that you are calling me anti-Christian, which is not the case. I am anti-bigotry and hatred for people of color, held by people like yourself who wrap yourself in a cloak of piety as an excuse for your bigotry.
“When blacks were more oppressed and surely more poor (before LBJ’s Great Society) they had more two parent families than whites. And most of their children, like whites, were born in wedlock”
Your implication that LBJ’s Great Society helped destroy the black family structure. That is not only untrue but it is unfair.
The Southerners who held slaves attempted to destroy the Black family. However, they weren’t able to do so because unlike the stereotypes of your White Supremacist heroes, black families and Black culture remained strong. What hurt it, was denying Black men jobs, making aid to families contingent upon the man not being in the household, the distribution of drugs to the black communities and the continuing racism in US society.
That is really besides the point though and is your way of avoiding the point I was really making, which was that among the supposedly most pious parts of the nation, the Bible Belt, STD’s and unwanted pregnancies among Christian fundamentalists is skyrocketing. Now I know it might tax your memory again, but that was written in response to your claiming liberalism was ruining the country by behaving immorally.
“It was the welfare system that threw a wrench in the advancement of blacks and has almost virtually destroyed the black family.”
The Welfare System which began in the 1930’s, not 1960’s, had then and has now more whites on it then any other group of people. Were all of their families destroyed?
“But it was the left that promoted the sexual revolution at the same time we got rid of tough divorce laws for everyone.”
The highest rates of divorce in the country exists in the so-called “Red (conservative)States.” The lowest divorce rates are in the so-called “Blue (liberal) States.”
“So now you have called me a pervert and a degenerate. Nice. Real nice. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you could be.”
Tootie. Really? I mean really? Look back at all the nasty things you’ve said about “libs,” to use your term. Did you think because you were slandering a group, not a particular individual, that somehow you weren’t making highly personal attacks? The problem with people like yourself is that you can
attack in any vicious way you choose, but cry foul when you are attacked in turn.
“Christians, as you ought to know, tend to understand they are responsible for their own children.”
Having worked for 11 years in the field of child welfare and in the location of husbands not paying support, I can tell you that the same percentage of Christians do not feel/act responsibly to their children as does any other group.
“Blood? Blood! On whose hands? You don’t fool me or Jehovah.”
While I don’t believe in an afterlife, heaven or hell, I’m do know that if their is one I’ve got a lot better chance to get to heaven than do you and your bigoted friends. Now Tootie, I’ve really tried to engage in a reasonable discussion with you, but unfortunately it has only revealed more and more of your true self, which is that of an ignorant bigot. since you appear to have a short memory about what is written by people let me again reiterate. Being ignorant has nothing to do with education or social status, it has to do with having a mind that is receptive to mulling over ideas that might not fit in with one’s own belief. You are ignorant because you’ve shown yourself unable to do that and because bigotry drips from most of your writing.
If they really cared about ordinary people they would not repeal the whole bill. The provision saying that nobody can be denied health insurance based on a pre-existing condition is clearly beneficial to the American people. There are so many patients diagnosed with breast or prostate cancer for whom the repeal of this particular provision would be a complete disaster.
Bob, Esq.,
lol
Exodus Ch 8, 1-4
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Let my people go, that they may serve me.
2 And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs:
3 and the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into thine house, and into thy bedchamber, and upon thy bed, and into the house of thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thine ovens, and into thy [hearts]:
4 and the frogs shall come up both on thee, and upon thy people, and [and shall play benefit concerts for the oppressed…]
Awww.
I’m ignored by the ignorant, but clearly not by the propagandists propping up the ignorant.
I’m just so . . . indifferent and not surprised.
Taliban Tootie:
Good dog, you are one obnoxious mofo.
You can post your long, boring biblical fantasies all over the goddamned place, I’m not reading.
You can post your long, boring and incoherent psycho-babble regarding the Constitution all over the goddamned place, I’m not reading.
You can post why you think the ACA is unconstitutional until your fingers bleed, I am not reading. Why? Because you have been slapped upside your empty skull – repeatedely – that you’re “logic” is wrong.
Jesus f**king Christ, Taliban Tootie, put your stalking to f**king REST.
Action:
Buddha who? 🙂
I don’t read Buddha. Does that help?
Stam:
You are making this about me by your personal attacks. I can only concluded that this is because you don’t have what it takes to discuss the issue.
No one, that I could see, on this thread ever provided adequate evidence or support for the claim that Obamacare was Constitutional. It appears you hide behind your assertion that others have supplied ample statements or proofs such that you don’t need to explain your position to me. And what do we get instead? You, using obscenities and insults as a more fruitful line of communication and using what others did not appear to say as the excuse for it.
If Obamacare was justified in Constitution a very bright older child could point out the words without too much trouble. But yet you cannot seem to do it. I am forced to conclude that you don’t know where it is or you already know it is unconstitutional, you don’t care, and have chosen to throw your lot in with lawless usurper, President Obama.
I refrain from attacking people personally, but do respond to attacks on me. And if between the two of us (me a Christian and you presumably not)there was ever any hope of moral improvement about our conduct here at this blog, I doubt that it will ever come from you as you continue to attack me.
It is unlikely that you even have a moral code that might help you reform yourself. At least I do. I’m not saying I’m living up to it, I’m just saying I have something to shoot for.
I’ve gone over my posts and didn’t see where I started attacking you. Perhaps I missed it. It appears you started the personal attacks. You certainly lowered yourself to obscenities, I pointed them out, and now you lash out at me for having called you out on it. You continue with your vicious personal attack on me and then have the nerve to insinuate that I’m the bad guy.
That is not rational. It is not logical. But it is typical of the mindset of evil doers who attack others for being evil doers, but don’t think they are the bad guy. This ends at murder. I’m not saying you are a murderer. I’m saying that the pose that one takes of being innocent when they are not is a pose if taken to it greatest length and extremes ends in murder. For example. Stalin. Or a more recent example, Hosni Mubarak. He commits grave evil thinking he is stopping evil. This mindset begins with the attitude that he is not evil and others are. The recent shooter of the congressman and murderer of the judge probably did not consider himself evil, but he is. This deception about evil others as opposed to our non-evil selves is what causes a good deal of human conflict.
In my world view everyone is evil. And there is evidence from the Bible and from nature.
Genesis 6:5
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 8:21
…and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.
You do not have to teach toddlers to lie, steal, or assault others. They do it naturally from birth. Well, you say, that is because their brains are undeveloped. Exactly. As the human is born naturally he is born with the corrupt nature when it could have been that he was born with the better nature. But he isn’t. He must be trained OUT of his true nature.
Let’s say we are both equally evil. Let me be generous to you and say I’m more evil (I’m sure you agree with that). What hope is there that either one of us will reform? I have much hope and much example for myself (even if you deny I do). Christ being the main hope for me and also a history of many Christians reforming themselves and doing good.
What do you have to refrom yourself? Nothing that I can see.
Especially if you continue your vicious personal attacks on me.
Hey Tootie:
Are all these “filthy” liberals as stoopid as Buddha?
BIL:
Ha! Far be it from me to deprive members of the male species their cross-cultural, cross-class fantasies!
Panty obsess way! 🙂
Lotta:
You have to have an amendment for such a scheme. But I appreciate that among all these folks you seem to be the only one who is interested in having a Constitutionally authorized health care system.
I believe such a system would still be immoral, but if there was an amendment it would at least be the more honest way to do things, instead of the dishonest way Obama did it.
Tootie:
How thin-skinned you are, perv. Humiliate you? Not only do you humiliate yourself, you make it easy for others to do so but, blame is always better to give then receive. As far as being “interested” in you – don’t flatter yourself. I’m more interested in watching paint dry than you but, I’m hammering on you because I’ve had enough of your bullshit. Why, you ask? Let me explain …
You are of the mindset of “do as I say, not as I do.” It’s okay for you to call those you disagree with murderers, filthy lefist, vomit, vomit, vomit, but you can’t take it when someone calls you for what you are. Well, just cry me a river and drown in it, Tootie bin Laden.
If you consider my calling you a pervert (which you are), a degenerate (which you are), and a member of the American Taliban (which you are) harrassment, I suggest you go through this blog, reread your drivel and see what you have called many here. Jesus H. Christ in a wheelchair, your hypocrisy and ignorance knows no bounds.
Blouise:
Holy Toledo what? Did I make a factual error about the black family? Or about leftist’s role in destroying it with welfare and sexual revolution (and abortion)?
SG, Amazing isn’t it? Institutionalize profit taking for no value added in an industry already exempt from anti-trust laws? Hey, sounds good to me, by all means lets close that deal!
It’s not the first political ‘thing’ I’ve seen that I never thought I’d see. In the last decade or so the line, that line in the sand you don’t think you’ll ever see crossed, has been obliterated; all that’s left are countless footprints going in the direction of the “here be monsters” side. I’m constantly amazed but seldom surprised anymore. 🙂
Yes LK, that’s the thing. It’s really ironic to see progressives defending a mandate to give money to the insurance companies.
Shady_Grady: Continuing to allow the insurance companies to have a strangle hold on medical care as the gate-keepers to it is the worst possible way to reform health care IMO and entirely politics-in-action. I too think a single payer system, (Medicare for all) could have been accomplished, funded along the lines of the unemployment insurance program, and gotten rid of any Constitutional conflicts.