The First Chink in the Armor - Health Care Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional

[Gutshot John]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._WSJ_US_News_3

[Gutshot John]

http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/C...%20Opinion.pdf

[THCDDM4]

Quoted fromt the article linked above by GSJ:

"U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

No shit it exceeds congressional powers/constitutional boundaries...

Good to see judges standing up against this atrocity of an unconstitutional bill.

Reading that bill, whilst my congresmen and woman didn't for some reason (When it is their effing job for chrissake, and I barely have time to read stuff that is entertaining!) was tantamount to receving a frontal lobe lobotomy while being raped by an inmate named Tiny. The fact that it passed the house and senate is beyond me, and truly proves how far removed from reality our so called "representatives" have become.

[montanadave]

The myriad of cases working their way through the federal judiciary are merely prelude (and political kabuki theatre) to the final showdown in the Supreme Court.

Everyone might as well keep their powder dry until the SCOTUS rules.

[Gutshot John]

The myriad of cases working their way through the federal judiciary are merely prelude (and political kabuki theatre) to the final showdown in the Supreme Court.

Everyone might as well keep their powder dry until the SCOTUS rules.

If that were true why even have district, appellate and circuit courts?

Subsequent decisions are usually made on the strength of the lower court decisions.

There is little chance that a favorable judgment could have been made without them.

[rickrock305]

Good, get rid of this crap bill and start over. This time WITHOUT the massive giveaways to insurance and pharma companies.

[montanadave]

"U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

A rather weak argument given the fact that there is NO provision within the bill for enforcement of the penalty should anyone refuse the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

Put another way, there is apparently no penalty for failing to pay the penalty for failing to purchase individual insurance.

Section 1501 of H.R. 3590 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) discusses the individual mandate and amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Chapter 48, Section 500A, paragraph (g) Administration and Procedure, (2) Special Rules) with the following language: "(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES- In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...bORsk:e406299:)

I don't understand how you can seek to overturn a law for imposing an individual mandate when, in essence, the mandate doesn't exist. Is a law without any penalty for violating that law enforceable?

Just another example of the smoke and mirrors contained within this health care bill and all the misconceptions surrounding it, whether promulgated by opponents or supporters. What a mess!

[ForTehNguyen]

doesnt change the fact that you are still forced to pay for it.

[Gutshot John]

A rather weak argument given the fact that there is NO provision within the bill for enforcement of the penalty should anyone refuse the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

You've missed the point.

Obamacare may not have an enforcement mechanism now because enforcement without a precedent in support of an individual mandate would probably make it unconstitutional. The writers aren't stupid. It's a process of building the power up and this is only the foundation.

Obamacare as written is counting on the mandate itself being endorsed by the court first and adding enforcement later to this or other bills down the road once the precedent of an individual mandate has been established.

If the mandate itself survives the courts, than enforcement is the next logical step because you can't "mandate" behavior if you can't enforce it.

[montanadave]

If that were true why even have district, appellate and circuit courts?

I agree with you in principle but it is hard to ignore the disparities between judicial rulings on "hot potato" issues which are ideologically based and can be directly traced to whether the judge or judges were nominated to the federal bench by Republican or Democratic administrations. Judge Hudson was appointed by George W. Bush in 2002, this particular case now moves to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, where the majority is held by judges appointed by Democratic administrations. Time will tell.

As noted in my previous post, I think Judge Hudson's basis for his decision is a trifle muddled. The more interesting challenge, in my opinion, is the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General in Florida (which has been joined by Attorneys General from 19 other states as well as the National Federation of Independent Business). This case not only seeks to nullify the H.R. 3590 on the basis of the individual mandate, but also protests the massive expansion of state Medicaid payments required from cash-strapped state governments.

Lower court decisions will all provide interesting political theatre, as various jurisdictions rule one way or the other, but neither side in this debate is likely to back off until they get to argue their appeal before the Supreme Court.