A Virginia federal judge is expected to rule Monday on whether the Obama administration's health law violates the Constitution, opening a new stage in the administration's defense of its biggest legislative achievement.
The ruling by District Judge Henry E. Hudson is perhaps the most significant so far among a slew of state-based legal challenges to the law, which also faces attack by newly resurgent Republicans in Congress. More than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against the health overhaul since President Barack Obama signed it in March.
While the cases differ somewhat, they largely rest on the argument that Congress lacks constitutional authority to require most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a fee. The Obama administration counters that three clauses of the Constitution gave Congress the power to put the requirement, known as the individual mandate, in the law as part of regulating how people pay for health care.
The Virginia challenge is led by that state's attorney general, Republican Ken Cuccinelli. Separately, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Fla., on Thursday will hear arguments in a challenge brought by officials in 20 states. He could offer the clearest indication yet of how he will rule.
Journal Community Supporters of the law are bracing for defeats in Virginia and in Florida. Judges Hudson and Vinson have both shown sympathy to the plaintiffs' arguments and are GOP appointees.
Two other federal judges, in separate lawsuits in Michigan and Virginia, have already ruled in the administration's favor on the individual-mandate question. Those cases, along with the other federal cases challenging the law, have a narrower base of plaintiffs than the suits brought in Florida and before Judge Hudson in Virginia.
Even if judges rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, it isn't likely to stop the law from being carried out for now. Plaintiffs in the Virginia and Florida cases have asked the judges for an injunction to halt the law's implementation nationwide. But people close to the plaintiffs concede the federal courts are likely to leave the law in place while the challenges go on. Both sides expect the matter to end up at the Supreme Court.
The individual mandate doesn't take effect until 2014, so courts are less likely to see the need for a quick injunction.
Health-care consultants say employers and health-care companies are pressing ahead with their response to the law without regard for the court's decisions. States have started planning to create new health-insurance exchanges for consumers to shop for insurance, and they are calculating the costs of expanding the Medicaid insurance program for the poor.
In addition to arguing that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, Florida's lawsuit, led by a mostly Republican group of governors and attorneys general, also contends that the law's expansion of Medicaid to 16 million additional Americans places an unfair burden on already cash-strapped states.
In court papers, the Obama administration argues that states are free to drop out of Medicaid, a joint federal-state program. Lawyers for the states counter that the program is too big to make dropping out a realistic option.
In fact, however, some of the states involved in the lawsuit, including Texas, have begun discussions about pulling out of Medicaid in coming years. If they carried out the threat, it would undercut the states' legal argument, but also undermine the aim of the law's supporters to expand Medicaid.
Judge Vinson in Florida has suggested he views the states' argument on Medicaid as a stretch, while showing more sympathy toward the argument against the individual mandate.
"I certainly expect us to prevail," said David Rivkin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit, given what he called the "weakness" of the administration's case.
Backers of the law concede they may lose some of the lower-court decisions, but they say they will ultimately prevail.
For both sides, the legal arguments are also a political tool.
The Obama administration has stressed some popular provisions that would be thrown out with the rest of the law should higher courts ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiffs. One prevents insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and the other requires insurers to charge all customers similar rates regardless of their health status.
Republicans for their part are focusing on the individual insurance mandate as perhaps the least popular piece of the law. The GOP is treating the lawsuits as one prong in a strategy to sow public discontent with the law and, ultimately, help the party retake the White House in 2012.
In the short term, the biggest effect of the early decisions, should they find fault with the law, is likely to be a publicity headache for the Obama administration and confusion among consumers.
"This has a chance to be a fairly polarizing and corrosive event," said Brad Joondeph, professor of law at Santa Clara University in California.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-13-2010).]
IP: Logged
12:15 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
They wouldn't have had this problem if the Obama Administration had some Constitutional lawyers or professors who believe in the Constitution to refer to for advice.
Fixed that for you.
IP: Logged
12:20 PM
cliffw Member
Posts: 35951 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Formula88: They wouldn't have had this problem if the Obama Administration had some Constitutional lawyers or professors to refer to for advice.
They have every means available to them. Including Obama who is a Constitutional lawyer/professor. I do understand your point though.
IP: Logged
12:26 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by maryjane: It will go to SCOTUS for a final ruling, unless the new congress can get that part removed from the legislation.
That part is essential to the affordability of it, pre-existing conditions mainly, and as a way to bring costs down for those that could not before afford it. The mandate is the foundation of the house of cards this wealth redistribution scheme is built upon.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 12-13-2010).]
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Don't forget three paramount words. The Appellate Courts. The journey to the SCOTUS begins with a single step. It ain't over yet.
The Appellate Courts can be leap frogged and it has been requested. This has been a very decisive issue and needs to be settled. Sooner than later. As the uncertainty is affecting the economy, as well as everyday business planning.
IP: Logged
07:49 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27081 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
The Appellate Courts can be leap frogged and it has been requested. This has been a very decisive issue and needs to be settled. Sooner than later. As the uncertainty is affecting the economy, as well as everyday business planning.
Not to mention, if it's so great, why are over 200 companies getting exemptions from Obamacare?
The journey to the SCOTUS begins with a single step. It ain't over yet.
Not to mention that there have already been two federal court decisions affirming the new health care law. Funny how some people are so quick to cherry pick court decisions that support their prejudices.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
... why are over 200 companies getting exemptions from Obamacare?
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Not to mention that there have already been two federal court decisions affirming the new health care law. Funny how some people are so quick to cherry pick court decisions that support their prejudices.
Really ? I did hear something of the sorts mentioned. Which Federal Court decisions ? As far as I knew, the only other challenge was a 20+ state effort which has not been heard yet. The something of sorts that I did hear were decisions allowing the case to be heard. To go forward. Also, more than 200 companies have gotten exemptions. Even the supporting Unions have been granted, or at least asked for them.
quote
per your source Q: Has the Obama administration allowed corporations to "opt out" of the new health care law? A: No. The government has granted more than 200 waivers, but these merely give companies a temporary delay before being required to improve the coverage of cheap, bare-bones plans they currently offer.
IP: Logged
08:30 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27081 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Question for you, Marvin. Do YOU think that it is constitutional for the government to *require* you to purchase something in order to be a law abiding citizen?
IP: Logged
11:12 PM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
Question for you, Marvin. Do YOU think that it is constitutional for the government to *require* you to purchase something in order to be a law abiding citizen?
There you go again! Confronted with facts you don't like, you change the subject!
I am neither a federal judge nor a constitutional lawyer, so my opinion is moot except at the ballot box. However, I believe that your question implies its own conclusion ... and thus would not be allowed in a court of law. I would assert, however, that the law itself is what defines being "a law abiding citizen." Beyond that, I decline to argue with you about it.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-14-2010).]
There you go again! Confronted with fact, you change the subject!
WRONG. I do NOT change the subject like that, and object to you suggesting I do. And I was sincerely asking you the question for the sake of asking the question.
quote
I am neither a federal judge nor a constitutional lawyer, so my opinion is moot except at the ballot box. However, I believe that your question implies its own conclusion ... and thus would not be allowed in a court of law. I would assert, however, that the law itself is what defines being "a law abiding citizen."
OK, perhaps the question might have been too leading to the conclusion. Oh, and this isn't a court of law, it's an internet discussion forum. But since...
quote
Beyond that, I decline to argue with you about it.
...you accuse me of changing the subject, refuse to answer and make a convenient exit, I won't bother reiterating.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-14-2010).]
IP: Logged
01:08 AM
jimbolaya Member
Posts: 10652 From: Virginia Beach, Virginia Registered: Feb 2007
Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. For those homers out there, no one said it was over, and no one said there weren't any other court decisons. However, it is a step in the right direction, and I believe the highest court decision to date. I certainly am aware it will go to the SCOTUS. If the "cherry pickers" on the bench have read the constitution lately, this will ultimately be struck down. Unfortunately none of us can count on that.
Jim
IP: Logged
04:40 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22812 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I suggest everyone not forget three paramount words.
The Appellate Courts.
The journey to the SCOTUS begins with a single step. It ain't over yet.
SCOTUS is supposed to be made up of judges who are there to ensure that the constitution is protected. The last two appointments are very much the revisionists... which is completely insane as far as I'm concerned. They view the constitution as a living document, which it is not... it's set in stone. Never the less, the majority of the members of SCOTUS are Constitutional Protectionists... so it's very unlikely that it will make it past the Supreme Court... expect this part of the bill to be judged unconstitutional and thrown out.
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
Not to mention that there have already been two federal court decisions affirming the new health care law. Funny how some people are so quick to cherry pick court decisions that support their prejudices.
They weren't SUPREME court decisions... they were local Federal district courts... just as this one was. This one (unlike the other two) will now go on to the Supreme Court because the administration will APPEAL it.
Whether you like it or not, the constitution explicitly states that the Federal Government may not force a citizen to purchase a good or service. That is exactly what this is. They seem to think that by calling it a fine, that they're getting around it, but essentially... it's still a forced purchase. That is unconstitutional. Sure... it makes the entire health care program fly apart at the seams since now there will be absolutely no way for them to pay for it. Not like it was deficit neutral anyway... anyone with half a brain knows that taxing 10 years to pay for 6 years will not work past the 10 year mark.
Hey, if SCOTUS upholds the mandate then that means we can pass a bill requiring all American citizens to buy a certain minimum amount of firearms every year or face imprisonment. Not that I really need any more firepower around the house, but I'd happily defend it just to watch the libtards go nuts !
IP: Logged
09:05 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
This was a judgement made by one judge. Nothing is really settled till it hits the Supreme Court. I wouldnt put it past the administration to try to intimidate, blackmail, or kill off objecting judges so he could appoint ones that would vote for yes for it. This could all make for a great blockbuster movie like Eagle Eye.
IP: Logged
10:51 AM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9474 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
While this is not the final word, it is the beginning of having the law overturned. ObamaCare is the first law in US history that requires every citizen to purchase a service for the simple act of breathing. Their claim that it falls under the interstate commerce clause is stretching the words to be unrecognizable.
I would ask the question to supporters of the law: what does not fall under the interstate commerce clause? Also I would ask: what powers exactly were referred to by the 10th Amendment? Those are rhetorical questions of course. The answer is obvious. That commerce clause has been abused.
IMO big government politicians have abused that clause since FDR. If I am to believe those same politicians, that simple phrase in the Constitution gives them the ability to pass any law no matter how convoluted the line of reasoning tying it back to the interstate commerce clause. At the same time, it makes the 10th Amendment irrelevant.
IP: Logged
11:08 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Did you hear that states such as Mass. don't have enough money for their health care program and Medicaid is cutting back on services, one person didn't get a liver transplant because of the cutback. People are dying (or going to die) because they have government run healthcare. Amazing.
Not only Massachusetts, but Tennesee is in financial trouble due to their mandatory health care. Having a government make you have health insurance is beyond my scope of reasoning. To have someone DEMAND that we carry insurance, or fine and jail us if we don't is unimaginable. But, it is happening. Yes. We have to carry car insurance. But, just how much water can our government squeeze from this rock? It sounds all good to have insurance for all, but it is not feasable. We are taxed to the point of being poor. Sure, many only pay about 28% of their check to taxes. But, factor in gas tax. Cigarette tax. Candy tax. State tax. All of these little taxes sure add up fast.
Many of us are struggling during this hard economic time. There comes a point where a guy just can't take it anymore. Big business are getting tax breaks. Heck, even god has been given a giant tax break to build a christian amusement park. GM gets bailed out. Chrysler, which everyone knew is now a foriegn company gets a bailout. What about us? The motherfaaaaqers that elected you bafoons. Why do companies get the breaks? Oh yeah, because it will "trickle down" to the working man.
I have that 1000 yard stare thing going on at this moment. I am so faaaqing stressed out. I am trying to keep it together, but life is just pummeling me. I need to stop typing now.
IP: Logged
12:25 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Did you hear that states such as Mass. don't have enough money for their health care program and Medicaid is cutting back on services, one person didn't get a liver transplant because of the cutback. People are dying (or going to die) because they have government run healthcare. Amazing.
I know a lot of "Progressives" look at the Constitution from a "different" perspective... but the Constitution specifically states what the government is ALLOWED to do... not "some of the things" it can do. Anything that is NOT listed... I repeat, anything that is NOT otherwise listed in the Constitution either as an article or an amendment, means that the Federal Government can make NO law or requirement demanding such action. In this case, of the commerce clause, no where does it even SUGGEST that the US Government has the right to mandate a minimum coverage amount. The argument by the Dems suggests that the commerce clause allows them to do so by regulating trade between the states, however, no where does it say they can mandate a minimum. In addition, the taxes can only be imposed at the Federal level by INCOME, nothing else.
I don't have my constitution in front of me (I normally have a Heritage Foundation pocket copy with me in my office), but it also says (somewhere) in one of the more recent amendments that the Federal Government MAY NOT require citizens to purchase a product or good. I think it's an amendment to the commerce clause.
If you look at the Constitution from the stand-point of what the Government is ALLOWED to do... VS a scope of what the Government can do as a minimum, then it puts it into a different perspective.
The local district courts that are ruling in favor of the bill have all been in fairly liberal areas, and honestly... these are people who feel that the Constitution should grow.
Essentially, the ONLY way to legally mandate Health Insurance to everyone is if each state decided to pass their own health care. The individual states DO have the right (by order of the Constitution) to levy such fees, fines, and taxes.
The Federal Government MAY pass universal healthcare, and then simply raise income taxes across the board to pay for it... but that would have been even more widely unpopular than this current HR-3962 bill was... heh.
The only other way of course that they could GRANT the Federal Government the right to do so, would be if on the next presidential or mid-term election, we added a vote for an amendment to the Constitution that added language in there permitting it... which I doubt would pass... although, honestly... the liberal majority in the house and senate from 2006-2008 might have had better luck had they included that in the 2008 presidential election ballot. Nancy Pelosi could have worded it in a ridiculous way to suggest that the bill would give the government the ability to grand healthcare to all... when really all it would be is a finely worded clause stating the Federal Government can impose fines and a mandatory purchase of health insurance.
The car insurance argument is really off the wall... because even the Federal Government cannot mandate that... (because of the same reasons). It's mandated by the individual states. And... the only reason we have mandatory car insurance in the majority of the states is because investors like Warren Buffet (Geico Insurance) and George Soros (large investor and part founder of Progressive insurance) lobbied all the local state governments to pass such legislation, as well as "No Fault" insurance so they are even less obligated to pay out, even though they have since made it mandatory for the state citizens to pay into it.
... the constitution explicitly states that the Federal Government may not force a citizen to purchase a good or service.
quote
I don't have my constitution in front of me (I normally have a Heritage Foundation pocket copy with me in my office), but it also says (somewhere) in one of the more recent amendments that the Federal Government MAY NOT require citizens to purchase a product or good. I think it's an amendment to the commerce clause.
That would be "explicit," but I can't find any such language. Specific citation?
Are you trying to figure out if this is constitional or not, or has your focus of argument moved towards simply trying to "win" in a discussion over me? Just curious...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Are you trying to figure out if this is constitional or not, or has your focus of argument moved towards simply trying to "win" in a discussion over me? Just curious...
He already revealed his intent in this post:
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis
I am neither a federal judge nor a constitutional lawyer, so my opinion is moot except at the ballot box. However, I believe that your question implies its own conclusion ... and thus would not be allowed in a court of law. I would assert, however, that the law itself is what defines being "a law abiding citizen." Beyond that, I decline to argue with you about it.
He won't discuss the merits of the subject but he is more than happy to point out any technicalities that he can find. In other words, he is trolling.
