A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the individual mandate in President Obama's health care law is unconstitutional.Hell yeah!
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law |
| 2011-08-12 |
| A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the individual mandate in President Obama's health care law is unconstitutional. Hell yeah! |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #15 "Obama is practicing law, all right." Maybe if he keeps practicing, AH, he'll eventually get it right. After all, even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-08-12 19:18 |
| #14 Obama is practicing law, all right. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-08-12 18:41 |
| #13 He is liscensed to practice law but neither he nor Michaele have ever done so. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2011-08-12 18:35 |
| #12 It was Michelle who failed her first Illinois bar exam. |
| Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165 2011-08-12 17:56 |
| #11 He was licensed to practice in Illinois, so he must have passed whatever bar exam they have. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-08-12 17:46 |
| #10 Is it true that Obama has never passed a bar exam? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-08-12 17:40 |
| #9 The court is asserting that the Feds can't force us to buy insurance, but the entire rest of the mess is OK by them. Note that this was a 2-1 decision and the first time a donk judge voted to overturn any part of the law. It may have been the deal the trunk had to settle for to overturn anything. In any case it will be up to the Supremes and in this case they aren't likely to be swayed too heavily by what the lower courts have done given its importance. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2011-08-12 17:36 |
| #8 TW: doesn't work quite that way at law school, or medical school. Lecturers are usually part-time faculty bringing their expertise to the students. It's a convenient rank because it's not tenure track and there are no expectations other than teaching. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-08-12 17:21 |
| #7 The individual mandate is the linchpin. Remove that and it falls apart. Congress will have to come up with a new bill. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2011-08-12 16:25 |
| #6 No doubt the government will appeal this ruling up to the Supreme Court, which can then rule whether implied severability exists. But the bottom line is that without the mandate, the whole thing will go broke on short order, as people go uninsured until an expensive problem appears, at which point they will demand covered treatment. About Mr. Obama, esq.'s legal expertise: any old grad student can come in as a lecturer. My mother taught graduate level courses even as she was taking her first classes at that level -- the professor sets the curriculum, the lecturer may get to choose what examples he will use to illustrate the principles presented. Or not, as the case may be. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-08-12 16:22 |
| #5 Note the last paragraph quoted by Beavis. The court is asserting that the Feds can't force us to buy insurance, but the entire rest of the mess is OK by them. I thought previous Supreme Court rulings have said that a specific severability clause was required or, when a section is found unconstitutional, the whole thing gets tossed. Here the court sees something that ain't there. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2011-08-12 15:20 |
| #4 How could Obummer make such a bo-bo. More like his advisors trying to be clever, plus the administration's leaving the whole mess to the Democrat Congressional Circus. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2011-08-12 15:03 |
| #3 "Isn't he supposed to be a constitutional law expert, or something?" More like a legend in his own mind, tipper. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-08-12 14:45 |
| #2 How could Obummer make such a bo-bo. Isn't he supposed to be a constitutional law expert, or something? |
| Posted by: tipper 2011-08-12 14:08 |
| #1 We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional. Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments. Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function. Further, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce. [fn omitted] The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act’s myriad reforms. The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met. |
| Posted by: Beavis 2011-08-12 14:00 |