Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Andrew M. Harris
Bloomberg News
January 31, 2011

Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama's health care reform legislation, assailed as an abuse of federal power in a 26-state lawsuit, was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida, declared the law unconstitutional in a ruling today. Then- Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed suit on behalf of 13 states on March 23, the same day Obama signed into law the legislation intended to provide the U.S. with almost universal health-care coverage. Seven states joined the litigation last year, and six signed on this year. Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli sued separately on March 23 and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed his own suit on Jan. 21.

Vinson's ruling may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, is already slated in May to hear challenges to two conflicting federal court rulings in that state, one of which upheld the legislation while the other invalidated part of it. The U.S. Supreme Court may ultimately be asked to consider the issue.

The 955-page law bars insurers from denying coverage to people who are sick and from imposing lifetime limits on costs. It also includes pilot projects to test ideas like incentives for better results and bundled payments to medical teams for patient care.

In an Oct. 14 decision letting the case to proceed, Vinson narrowed the issues to whether the act exceeded the constitutional powers of Congress by requiring all Americans over the age of 18 to obtain coverage and expanding eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state program offering care for the indigent.

The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

The judge used Obama's own words against hm in his ruling.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

That's 2-1 against. It's not looking good for Obamacare. Thankfully.

TexasBlue wrote:The judge used Obama's own words against hm in his ruling.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Which yet again illustrates just how duplicitous this guy actually is.

dblboggie wrote:That's 2-1 against. It's not looking good for Obamacare. Thankfully.

Note: Judge Hudson in Virginia didn't actually rule the entire law unconstitutional, just the mandate. Judge Vinson went further and ruled the entire law unconstitutional--specifically, because of the mandate + the lack of a severability clause. (Though I'm sure Hudson agrees with Vinson's ruling).

Yeah. The Dems left out a clause that would allow the rest of the law to stand if part of it were struck down.

I agree with your second sentence. The SCOTUS really needs to review this pronto. It's a question that needs to be resolved already.

I don't have the hardcore opposition to Obamacare (I don't use the term pejoratively) that you guys do, but I can see how the mandate is constitutionally dubious. I find it bizarre that so many Dems were opposed to a public option, but were somehow OK with this mandate.

On the other hand, what is the difference between being forced to pay for something yourself, and being forced to pay the government money that they then pay to, say, American farms and energy companies?

and so the law turns very slowly and very expensively.. and so on to the next court

kronos wrote:

dblboggie wrote:That's 2-1 against. It's not looking good for Obamacare. Thankfully.

Note: Judge Hudson in Virginia didn't actually rule the entire law unconstitutional, just the mandate. Judge Vinson went further and ruled the entire law unconstitutional--specifically, because of the mandate + the lack of a severability clause. (Though I'm sure Hudson agrees with Vinson's ruling).

Oh, I know Hudson didn't rule against the entire law, but then he didn't actually have to. Without the mandate, the law is useless (except to inflict pain and suffering on Americans).

kronos wrote:Yeah. The Dems left out a clause that would allow the rest of the law to stand if part of it were struck down.

Although without the mandate, the bill cannot do what the Dems say it is intended to do.

kronos wrote:I agree with your second sentence. The SCOTUS really needs to review this pronto. It's a question that needs to be resolved already.

I concur.

kronos wrote:I don't have the hardcore opposition to Obamacare (I don't use the term pejoratively) that you guys do, but I can see how the mandate is constitutionally dubious. I find it bizarre that so many Dems were opposed to a public option, but were somehow OK with this mandate.

On the other hand, what is the difference between being forced to pay for something yourself, and being forced to pay the government money that they then pay to, say, American farms and energy companies?

My objection to Obamacare is the assumption that all our health insurance and health care industries need is more government intervention, regulation and control. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were ZERO private-sector solutions included in the legislation and I've posted repeatedly many private-sector fixes that would bring prices down dramatically while increasing access (the two things Obamacare is supposed to do but will not do).

Rather than growing government exponentially and dramatically increasing their control over our lives, shouldn't we give the many, many private-sector solutions that have been offered by the Republicans at least a shot?

cable2 wrote:and so the law turns very slowly and very expensively.. and so on to the next court

And how do you know it's expensive? Also, more states (26) than not (24) have suits filed against the govt on this. You always talk about the will of the people. Well, you're seeing it.

The ruling in it's entirety.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47909640/vinsonruling1-31-11

TexasBlue wrote:The ruling in it's entirety.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47909640/vinsonruling1-31-11

I've been reading this and it is an outstanding bit of writing. The judge has used the Federalist Papers to extremely good effect! This is going to be a very tough decision to beat on appeal.

Yeah, but when it gets to the USSC, it'll be a 5-4 vote.

TexasBlue wrote:Yeah, but when it gets to the USSC, it'll be a 5-4 vote.

The burning question is to which side?

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Yeah, but when it gets to the USSC, it'll be a 5-4 vote.

The burning question is to which side?

Vinsons.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Yeah, but when it gets to the USSC, it'll be a 5-4 vote.

The burning question is to which side?

Vinsons.

You hope... as do I. But it ain't over till the fat lady sings.