PDA

View Full Version : Individual mandate declared unconstitutional



Jfor
12-13-2010, 12:18 PM
On Fox news right now. Waiting to find the article.

djones520
12-13-2010, 12:23 PM
Oh that is a big win. I bet there are some seriously pissed people in DC right now.

Jfor
12-13-2010, 12:25 PM
It is up on Drudge. no link as it is an AP story.

Jfor
12-13-2010, 12:26 PM
Oh that is a big win. I bet there are some seriously pissed people in DC right now.

Yes it is a big win. We still have the judge in Florida to rule on Thursday too.

jendf
12-13-2010, 01:02 PM
I'm shocked. Happy, but shocked. :eek:

Constitutionally Speaking
12-13-2010, 01:38 PM
Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

(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."





http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/?hpt=T1



Happy Days!!!!!!

ralph wiggum
12-13-2010, 01:43 PM
I'm shocked. Happy, but shocked. :eek:

Obviously, the judge is racist!!!111 (DU Mode)

Wei Wu Wei
12-13-2010, 01:52 PM
Here's the ruling

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Hudson-ruling-on-health-care-12-13-10.pdf

Madisonian
12-13-2010, 02:01 PM
I just got through reading the 42 page decision which can be found here (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/PPM187_vahlthrlg.pdf)

There are some interesting points in the decision and in a few cases the judge kind of backhands the whole bill when dealing with the severability.
He notes "The bill embraces far more than health care reform. It is laden with provisions and riders patently extraneous to health care - over 400 in all" and "The final element of analysis is difficult to apply in this case given the haste with which the final version of the 2,700 page bill was rushed to the floor for a Christmas Eve vote. It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed the bill, encompassing a a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to health care without section 1501."

With respect to the constitutionality, he found "The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance - or crafting a scheme of universal health care coverage-it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

Well at least one federal judge gets it. Now we have to hope that the Supreme Court feels the same when it comes before them, as it undoubtedly will.

lacarnut
12-13-2010, 02:20 PM
Looking good, and when this dog gets to the S.C., it will be overturned.

Apache
12-13-2010, 02:57 PM
Looking good, and when this dog gets to the S.C., it will be overturned.

Repealling the damn thing is even better...

PoliCon
12-13-2010, 04:02 PM
Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Hudson's eagerly awaited decision invalidates the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a federal fine. Hudson's decision is the first striking down part of the controversial legislation.



"It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance," wrote Hudson who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. "An enactment that exceeds the power of Congress to adopt adversely affects everyone in every application."

The Obama administration is likely to appeal Monday's ruling to the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. It is widely expected that no matter the outcome before that court, the case will ultimately go before the Supreme Court, perhaps by this time next year.

VIDEO AT SOURCE (http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rule-obamacare-today)

AmPat
12-13-2010, 05:21 PM
What took so long? I knew this the day they proposed this Marxist legislation.

AmPat
12-13-2010, 05:51 PM
Repealling the damn thing is even better...
Agreed. Let's first fight the winnable battle to refuse funding and then repeal ASAP.

I long for the days when Americans would have closed ranks immediately when this anti-American, unconstitutional legislation was proposed. It was just prior to electing closet and open marxists like today's Marxist DIMoRATS.

marv
12-13-2010, 06:08 PM
Now, in defense of HCR, they will claim that states REQUIRE drivers to purchase auto liability insurance. But there're very big differences.

Health insurance is to benefit the policy holder. Liability insurance is to protect the public at large. Comparing auto liability insurance to health insurance is to compare health insurance coverage to auto comprehensive and collision coverage, neither of which are required by any state, only by the auto loan maker in consideration for making the loan.

States do not require the purchase of auto liability insurance. They do require the licensed driver to show financial responsibility. Most of us do this by buying an auto liability insurance policy. Others by posting a bond in the amounts required under the individual states' insurance laws.

Without a mandate, hussein's HCR should hopefully collapse of it's own weight!

BadCat
12-13-2010, 06:22 PM
Looking good, and when this dog gets to the S.C., it will be overturned.

And apparently, that "thing" the communist in chief appointed to the SC, that "Kagan", will have to recuse itself.

Hawkgirl
12-13-2010, 06:35 PM
Yes it is a big win. We still have the judge in Florida to rule on Thursday too.

Eagerly awaiting that ruling...I hope we rule like Hudson.

Madisonian
12-13-2010, 06:36 PM
One of the major points of the opinion, which was limited to the mandatory purchase or face a penalty in the form of a tax, is that there has never been an instance where the Commerce Clause had been used to apply inactivity as a form of commerce.

As inactivity is not commerce, it falls outside the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper clause which was the fundamental agent of enforcement.
Further the court ruled that because the bill itself was explicit in some areas using the term "tax", specifically as applied to Cadillac plans, application to medical devices, etc and the term "penalty" in others, the terms could not be used interchangeably and as the refusal to buy insurance was a penalty, it was not with the purview of the tax code to be used as a penalty collection agent. Since theoretically if everyone bought insurance, there would be no penalties assessed and no revenue collected in the form of penalties, the IRS would be further enjoined since their permitted function is only to collect taxes in the form of general revenue.

I am not an attorney, but reading the decision the judge has this one pretty well wrapped up and it will be hard for the current court to overturn the ruling without establishing a new precedent.
An Obama SC would obviously see this differently.
That being the case, and the fact that Obama has authorized the Executive branch to assassinate American citizens that are "enemies of the state", Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy best watch their backs.:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
12-13-2010, 11:25 PM
I can't see a reason how the SC can rule any other way but to affirm the lower court's decision. Mandating a private citizen to do business with another private citizen with a monetary penalty for non-compliance is a violation of the 4th & 5th Amendments not to mention the Commerce Clause. Any Justice who dissents doesn't believe in the Constitution.

m00
12-13-2010, 11:27 PM
I can't see a reason how the SC can rule any other way but to affirm the lower court's decision. Mandating a private citizen to do business with another private citizen with a monetary penalty for non-compliance is a violation of the 4th & 5th Amendments not to mention the Commerce Clause. Any Justice who dissents doesn't believe in the Constitution.

Well, apparently neither our President nor Congress does. Why should the Judiciary?

NJCardFan
12-13-2010, 11:29 PM
Well, apparently neither our President nor Congress does. Why should the Judiciary?
But the SCOTUS is suppose to interpret the Constitution. Their personal feelings are supposed to be shelved.

m00
12-13-2010, 11:36 PM
But the SCOTUS is suppose to interpret the Constitution. Their personal feelings are supposed to be shelved.

Actually I don't believe this is strictly true. The courts aren't supposed to "interpret" the Constitution any more than the Legislative or the Executive - each is supposed to "interpret" within its on sphere. Whenever a law gets passed, or a police department sets a priority enforcement or a departmental policy, each is interpreting the Constitution in its own way. Now courts have positioned themselves as the final arbiter because of precedent and judicial review, but this still only means they are there to resolve conflicts - when two states disagree, or when a private citizen disagrees with government, and so forth.

I would argue that the notion of the courts existing to "interpret" the Constitution is dangerous, because really I think every official charged with writing or enforcing laws needs to uphold the Constitution and shelve their personal feelings (as you put it).

malloc
12-14-2010, 01:21 AM
This is good news because it breaks it whole house of cards which wouldn't have worked very well anyway.

A large block of these new insurance company "customers" who currently don't have medical care are young people, who are in good health, and choose to spend their money on things they want to do, as opposed to health care they don't really need. The income of these premiums were supposed to offset the premium/payout deficit caused by those with pre-existing conditions, the elderly, etc.

If this decision stands all the way up to the SCOTUS, and the fed gov't cannot force the young the subsidize these mandates, premiums are going to have to go up and up and up, or government subsidies are going to have to go up and up and up. I pity the politician who tries to increase subsidies to the medical insurance industry in this political climate. They might as well tar and feather themselves before hopping on the rail.

Since premiums are going to rise significantly more and more people are going to opt out of their own insurance, and the market is going to provide alternatives, like private group purchases, and all sorts of things I haven't even thought of yet.

If this decisions stands, the health care "reform" fiasco nullifies itself and collapses under it's own weight, even if the Republicans can't get it repealed for whatever reason.

Constitutionally Speaking
12-14-2010, 07:10 AM
Looking good, and when this dog gets to the S.C., it will be overturned.


Well, it WOULD have been - almost for sure - IF we had elected a Republican and he had appointed the last two SC justices.

Right now it is a crapshoot - with the wholly unreliable Kennedy as the deciding vote.



Anyone regretting sitting out the election or going 3rd party to punish the Republicans yet??


I keep telling people, the way to deal with liberal Republicans is to defeat them in the PRIMARIES - like we did this last congressional election.

Molon Labe
12-14-2010, 08:17 AM
Ken Cuccinelli's the one responsible for bringing this thing to bear in Virginia. He's a great Attorney General and very constitutionally sharp and sound. A really fine conservative.

Kay
12-14-2010, 08:24 AM
Actually I don't believe this is strictly true. The courts aren't supposed to "interpret" the Constitution any more than the Legislative or the Executive - ......
I would argue that the notion of the courts existing to "interpret" the Constitution is dangerous, because really I think every official charged with writing or enforcing laws needs to uphold the Constitution and shelve their personal feelings (as you put it).

Did you take civics in high school?

Molon Labe
12-14-2010, 08:29 AM
Did you take civics in high school?

It doesn't look like it, because he's actually gets the part about no need for interpretation if you use the constitution.

Us public school tards have had a lot of work unlearning the stupidity we were taught in the publik skools.

Sonnabend
12-14-2010, 08:41 AM
Well, it WOULD have been - almost for sure - IF we had elected a Republican and he had appointed the last two SC justices.

2012 is around the corner. Find a candidate. Get cracking.

Madisonian
12-14-2010, 09:15 AM
Actually I don't believe this is strictly true. The courts aren't supposed to "interpret" the Constitution any more than the Legislative or the Executive - each is supposed to "interpret" within its on sphere.

I would argue that the notion of the courts existing to "interpret" the Constitution is dangerous, because really I think every official charged with writing or enforcing laws needs to uphold the Constitution and shelve their personal feelings (as you put it).

Technically I would agree with you, but that ship sailed long ago in Marbury and has been reaffirmed so many times since then that to argue against SC interpretaion of the Constitution could be considered a classic textbook definition of an exercise in futility.

When the SC can decide that growing wheat on your own land only for your own use is "commerce" and as such can be legislated and regulated through the Commerce Clause (Wickard) or that your propertry can be seized and sold to a private developer to increase tax revenues under eminent domain(Kelo), interpretation is no longer a valid argument. They will interpret as they see fit and there is no further remedy available other than a future court that may interpret differently and overrule the previous decision and that does not happen often.

Even a Republican presidency is not a guarantor of what we would consider "right thinking" judges.
Ford gave us Stevens, Reagan gave us O'Connor and Bush I gave us Souter.

PoliCon
12-14-2010, 10:49 AM
Even a Republican presidency is not a guarantor of what we would consider "right thinking" judges.
Ford gave us Stevens, Reagan gave us O'Connor and Bush I gave us Souter.

Ford delegated picking a SCOTUS nominee to his AG Edward Levi. He trusted Levi and we got his good friend from Chicago - John Paul Stevens. Barry Goldwater recommended O'Conner to Reagan and Souter was recommend by John Sununu.

m00
12-15-2010, 08:46 PM
Did you take civics in high school?

The idea that the courts exist to "interpret" the constitution is an invented notion in Marbury v. Madison, the teaching of which was grossly oversimplified to spoon-feed people whose Constitution studies ended at High School.

Rockntractor
12-15-2010, 08:52 PM
The idea that the courts exist to "interpret" the constitution is an invented notion in Marbury v. Madison, the teaching of which was grossly oversimplified to spoon-feed people whose Constitution studies ended at High School.

Mark Levin is in basic agreement with you and can explain it better than anyone, if I run across the text I will post it sometime.

Rockntractor
12-15-2010, 08:56 PM
The idea that anything other than a literal understanding of the constitution was foreign to the founding fathers, at the time it was understood by all.
It is the responsibility of all branches of government to uphold it.

m00
12-15-2010, 09:22 PM
The idea that anything other than a literal understanding of the constitution was foreign to the founding fathers, at the time it was understood by all.
It is the responsibility of all branches of government to uphold it.

Absolutely. Every officer and agent of government needs to understand the constitution and apply it to their work. The Constitution has no value if this is not true.

AmPat
12-16-2010, 10:02 AM
Absolutely. Every officer and agent of government needs to understand the constitution and apply it to their work. The Constitution has no value if this is not true.

Exactly. The problem is what to do with the turds who are wiping their butts daily with it. Starting with the Chief Turd.

PoliCon
12-16-2010, 11:30 AM
Each and every federal employee takes an oath to uphold the constitution.

Madisonian
12-16-2010, 05:16 PM
Each and every federal employee takes an oath to uphold the constitution.

First of all I am not sure that each and every federal employee takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and even if they do, so what?
We don't hold elected officials to the oath they actually do take and hold them to their campaign promises, I am going to worry that a federal janitor doesn't either?

Constitutionally Speaking
12-16-2010, 09:20 PM
Ford delegated picking a SCOTUS nominee to his AG Edward Levi. He trusted Levi and we got his good friend from Chicago - John Paul Stevens. Barry Goldwater recommended O'Conner to Reagan and Souter was recommend by John Sununu.

This is true, but when we allow a Demcrat to pick a justice, it IS a guarantee we get a liberal one.


Most of these liberal Republican appointed justices occurred before the Republicans caught on to the politicization of the court. It took them a while, but they get it now (with help from the conservative watchdogs).

PoliCon
12-17-2010, 12:57 AM
First of all I am not sure that each and every federal employee takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and even if they do, so what?
We don't hold elected officials to the oath they actually do take and hold them to their campaign promises, I am going to worry that a federal janitor doesn't either?


U.S. Code


TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > 3331
Prev | Next
3331. Oath of office


An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/3331.html



For other officials, including members of Congress, it specifies they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, those newly elected or re-elected Congressmen - the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate - must recite an oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[39]

This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#cite_note-usc5.3331-38You were saying?

Madisonian
12-17-2010, 05:46 PM
I was saying I was not sure and you provided a link that cleared it up.
The bigger point is what difference does it make, which was the part you did not address.
Are you going to file a federal suit to remove every elected or appointed official that has not upheld the Constitution? Which Constitution ignoring judge are you going to file it with?