U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the individual mandate from the recent health care reform package, also known as Obamacare, is unconstitutional. Since that section is not serverable from the rest of the legislation, this voids the entire piece of legislation, according to the ruling. You can read the entire ruling here. Here’s an excerpt from the ruling:
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.
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 closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED.
In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.
This is certainly to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant and Tweets far too often.
January 31st, 2011 at 4:07 pm
What is the estimation of the time frame when the Supreme Court will likely hear this case….
6 months from now, a year, or longer?
January 31st, 2011 at 4:10 pm
FACEBOOK:
Mike Huckabee: Wanted to get this out to you right away. A federal judge in Florida has ruled the individual mandate portion of Obamacare is unconstitutional, and since that portion cannot be removed from the act itself, the entire law must fall. Great news! More details to follow.
45 minutes ago · Like · Comment
http://www.facebook.com/mikehuckabee?v=wall
January 31st, 2011 at 4:24 pm
We know eight of the judges will split 4-4 and the one who will decide the case I heard previously made a statement that they were getting on a slippery slope with the use of the commerce clause going too far. I predict 5-4 to say its unconstitutional.
January 31st, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Okay, I told you so. If we still had RightOSphere, I would give a link.
As far as when the Supreme court takes this will be interesting, because of now, Obamacare is gone. The court may let the appeals court take its place, but in any case, this will be face tracked because this Judge threw everything out in its entirety, and because it was taken be the States, it is gone unless an appeals court says otherwise. I think this judge wanted to wait until after the State of the Union so Obama couldn’t attack him like he did the Supremes last year.
January 31st, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Does this block implementation until/unless this decision is reversed?
January 31st, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Does this also mean that small businesses don’t have to submit a 1099 for everyone they said “hi” to last year?
January 31st, 2011 at 5:11 pm
MWS,
From what I understand, the whole thing was thrown out. So the Obama Administration will have to appeal to get the law reinstated.
I feel awesome! For the moment at least… I haven’t really felt like I am living in a free country for almost a year now. I will enjoy it for as long as it lasts. Which is hopefully, forever.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:13 pm
I’m not exactly sure what the impact of this is – since other courts in similar suits have already ruled it constitutional.
I will say this, however: Many self-titled “conservatives” apparently fail to grasp that requiring the financially able to purchase insurance is, very possibly, the best of bad options. If we cannot require people to maintain some way in which to pay at least some of their medical costs without going bankrupt, we may very likely be forced to permit doctors and hospitals to turn away the uninsured. It is either that, or watch as costs continue to skyrocket.
Sure, we can do things at the state level – but then the GOP must come out prepared to pressure the states on this matter.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Judge Vinson also slams Romneycare! cited on page 76, (Romneycare leaving the state of Massachusetts “worse off.”)
January 31st, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Kavon,
I hope you’re right. If ObamaCare gets tossed, they will obviously not get another bite at the apple for a VERY long time, if ever. Even when they had 60% of both houses and the Presidency, they had to cobble together an atrocious bill that wouldn’t even have survived as a conference report.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:21 pm
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html Page 76.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:23 pm
MWS,
I know I am right about the particulars of this decision. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the Obama Administration will appeal and that this eventually gets to the SC. What happens then, who knows. It all depends on Justice Kennedy.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:23 pm
“Judge Vinson also slams Romneycare! cited on page 76, (Romneycare leaving the state of Massachusetts “worse off.”)”
If the judge had “slammed Romneycare”, it would be grounds for a reprimand by the bar for inappropriately injecting his own political views into a case. What you are referencing were statements made by OBAMA at the height of his liberal idealism, and even there, it is little more than an opinion relating to some residents, offered on a television program.
In any case, the Massachusetts Taxpayer’s Foundation disagrees that the program has been an overall detriment to the population…but I will pull that report up later tonight.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Hi, curiosity here -
Would anyone on here like to try and make a point that, for those who can afford it, purchasing Health Insurance is anythong OTHER than the most responsible option?
Because I think that would be a very hard case to make, and if I am right on that account, then someone needs to explain why something that is responsible is right, until you have to be told to do it. Constitutionality aside (Because a similar measure could be passed at the state level legally), we all know that those opposing the Obamacare mandate also oppose any state-level mandate.
January 31st, 2011 at 7:13 pm
I believe that momentum is building, given a Republican President and Congress, for the repeal of Medicare and Social Security and to replace those programs with private tax incentives and personal savings accounts.
January 31st, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Tempest in a teapot. It’s constitutional, and has precedent. Give it up already.
January 31st, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Just about every Republican has cheered this ruling by the FL judge. The mandate is unconstitutional.
It’s just one more data point to suggest that the Romney supporters are misreading the electorate.
January 31st, 2011 at 8:04 pm
This is going to be the pivotal issue in 2012. This ruling today ensures that the topic will come up again and again until SCOTUS rules on it.
This will be the death of Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations.
January 31st, 2011 at 8:36 pm
…and yet you, much like those presidential candidates you clearly idolize so much, seem unable to put forward a viable alternative proposal.
If we cannot require even the most financially able people to purchase a means to cover their own medical bills without going into financial ruin, then what CAN we do?
Turn away the uninsured?
Continue to subsidize those who refuse to act responsibly?
Allow medical bankruptcies to continue to remove people form the economy?
January 31st, 2011 at 8:45 pm
19,
I’d keep it exactly the way it is. So will the rest of the GOP. They’re not interested in debating it anymore.
Let that sink in. Internalize it.
There will be NO DEBATE on a viable alternative proposal. Why should there be when the public isn’t clamoring for it?
Once you accept that reality, it follows that the sole candidate in the GOP field at odds with vast majority of the party members is very unlikely to gain traction.
January 31st, 2011 at 8:48 pm
I’ll put it this way. How comfortable was Giuliani when he had to talk about abortion? About the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade and all of the nitty gritty?
He balked.
That one issue made him unacceptable to the conservative majority in the GOP.
Romney will suffer a similar fate.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:03 pm
right…so you will allow ideological absolutism (which, by the way, runs against every traditional of personal responsibility that the GOP has previously embraced) to permit a crisis to continue like a bad disease.
Do you want to know how Romney wins on this issue? He stands up on stage and calls out every one of his opponents on it. He tells to public that they either can’t act, or won’t act. He tells them – and every word of this is true – that the crisis in healthcare will only continue to build, until either the liberals get strong on the back of Republican inaction, or the crisis becomes so severe that the only options remaining will be painful and unpopular – just like the deficit, just like social security, just like every other issue that hasn’t been adressed as it needs to be.
Moderates and Independents do not kowtow to the “government can’t make me philosophy”, and if ANY Republican nominee takes your advice, to try to dance around the issue, unable to give serious answers, or else telling the nation that we’ll just keep going with skyrocketing prices, millions of uninsured, etc – then that Republican will hand Obama an undeserved second term. People can always forgive a candidate who promises to do things differently, who can admit his mistakes – how many peopel do you think you’ll win over with the “we do nothing” mentality?
January 31st, 2011 at 9:13 pm
It’s not a crisis in health care. The public, in poll after poll, is not overly concerned with health care reform. Obama lost the public trust because in addition to focusing on a subject where there was not widespread concern, he foisted an unpopular mandate on the people.
Romney can call out the other candidates all he likes – and sound like a liberal Democrat in the process. It doesn’t matter how much he protests or how much his supporters spin…Republicans will never accept a mandate. And they will never accept a candidate that forced one on his constituents while holding elective office. And by signing MassCare into law that is what Romney did.
Moderates and Independents already do believe that the government has been trying to do too much – and in fact they support the Republicans when they assert the unconstitutionality of the health insurance mandate. Rasmussen has done frequent polling on this. That’s the same Rasmussen that Romney supporters hold up when those national polls are released.
The government can’t force us to buy things we don’t want to buy. Period. It’s a slippery slope that is not in keeping with intent of the constitution.
People are too fat in the United States. Does that mean that the government is going to next mandate gym memberships?
Government overstepped it’s role with HC bill that passed by partisan vote. SCOTUS is going to rule and is very likely to decide that the Republican argument is the correct one. And when it happens, Romney isn’t going to have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a Republican primary.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:16 pm
What Romney needs to do is insist that he was against the individual mandate and that it was inserted into his bill by the liberal Mass. legislature. Romney can come out against State mandated health insurance.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:38 pm
“What Romney needs to do is insist that he was against the individual mandate and that it was inserted into his bill by the liberal Mass. legislature. Romney can come out against State mandated health insurance.”
….which would be a lie.
It is beyond all logic that none of you would challenge that a financially capable individual’s most responsible choice would be to buy health insurance – but of course, responsibility is only good if nobody tells you to be responsible.
Am I right, then, in assuming that all of you are content to have hard-working, honest, responsible Americans subsidize the care of financially-secure ingrates who like to leech off the system by not buying insurance?
Or do you instead think we should lock those without insurance out of the emergency rooms?
Or perhaps allow them to ruin themselves financially, become unable to obtain cars, homes, or certain jobs, only to become addicted to state handouts?
This is not a debate with many good choices – but requiring those who are financially sound to protect themselves and everyone else should be common sense.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Healthcare has been a major issue for more than two decades. In 2008, ever major candidate – in both the Republican and Democratic primaries – talked about it. Now either every candidate was being fooled into thinking…or certain people somehow believe that with higher unemployment, lower savings, and an aging population, it is becoming less important — or maybe it just happens to be that the Democrats were the ones driving hte policy.
Lets even assume for a minute that our healthcare system doesn’t have any problems – on what grounds do you justify forcing hard-working, honest Americans to pay for the irresponsibility of voluntarily uninsured, yet finally capable individuals – over the option of requiring those who can afford it to be responsible and purchase protection, not only for themselves, but for those who would otherwise suffer from their leeching?
January 31st, 2011 at 10:30 pm
on what grounds do you justify forcing hard-working, honest Americans to pay for the irresponsibility of voluntarily uninsured, yet finally capable individuals – over the option of requiring those who can afford it to be responsible and purchase protection, not only for themselves, but for those who would otherwise suffer from their leeching?
On the grounds that constitution allows them to NOT BUY INSURANCE if they don’t like paying for insurance.
January 31st, 2011 at 10:31 pm
And this judge today just said that REQUIRING THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And you know that it’s likely that SCOTUS is going to say the same thing.
Assuming it does, there IS NO OPTION of requiring anyone to pay for it.
January 31st, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Once SCOTUS finds Obamacare unconstitutional, the next battle will be over the right of States to opt out of Medicare and Social Security.
January 31st, 2011 at 10:56 pm
#28 –
Even assuming it says that, it will have little bearing on the states, which could still require people to buy insurance through other powers…as noted in the court ruling today.
…and so what is your solution? You have evaded that part. Either we require these people to have insurance, allow hospitals to turn them away, or continue to force the rest of the population to subsidize them.
How can you say anything but the first is the best option?
January 31st, 2011 at 11:15 pm
If the Supreme Court strikes down a national mandate you can bet that the same sort of lawsuits will be filed in the states.
We’ll continue to deal with the fact that insurance premiums will rise and that it’s part of life in an imperfect system that’s still better than a socialistic alternative. That’s part of paying the bills in a capitalist society. College is too expensive. Subsidizing it means that we lower the value of a bachelor’s degree. Guaranteeing free health insurance will only ration care.
January 31st, 2011 at 11:53 pm
“If the Supreme Court strikes down a national mandate you can bet that the same sort of lawsuits will be filed in the states.”
Laws requiring car insurance have held up for decades in the states. Why would healthcare be any different?
—-
“better than a socialistic alternative.”
If every person, tomorrow, decided of their own free will to sign up under the same insurance company, would you call it socialist? Would you even object? On what grounds COULD you object?
The fact that everyone is covered by insurance does not make it socialist – particularly when they are free to choose which plan to sign up for, and when such plans are provided by the private sector.
—
“Guaranteeing free health insurance will only ration care.”
Where did I use the word “free”? “free” is what we have now, when any person can walk into a hospital and not have to pay their bill – sure, the hospital can pursue collection, but unless the person either has insurance or is incredibly rich, the chances that they will ever collect in full are incredibly slim.
Requiring all those who can afford it to purchase insurance will end the freeloading problem, lower premiums, bringing additional people into the system, while declogging emergency rooms and allowing many of those who could use preventative care to avoid massive costs from major illnesses to recieve it.
—-
The decreasing value of a bachelor’s degree is created by an excess supply, not excess demand. covering more people wiht insurance would increase demand, not supply.
February 1st, 2011 at 12:01 am
Laws requiring car insurance have held up for decades in the states. Why would healthcare be any different?
Bad argument. No one HAS to drive. Driving is a privelege. If you want to drive then you may have to pay for insurance. That’s not the same as being forced by virtue of simply existing.
If every person, tomorrow, decided of their own free will to sign up under the same insurance company, would you call it socialist?
The whole idea is that people are deciding on their own free will that they don’t want it.
This whole back and forth is all moot anyway and I am about to pack it in for the night. The point remains that the Republicans in a primary vote aren’t going to support what you support and what Romney did in Massachusetts. And there is no way that is ever going to change.
February 1st, 2011 at 12:17 am
It’s going to be upheld b/c of the Commerce Clause. I don’t like it either, but it’s false hope to think SCOTUS will find the Act unconstitutional.