Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
Federal District Court judge Henry Hudson has ruled that the Federal Govt does not have the authority to force people to sign up for socialized medicine or else pay a fine.

The first ray of sunlight has broken through the clouds of Obamacare.

More and more will soon be seen.

On to the Supreme Court.

-----------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia

Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law

by Larry O'Dell
Associated Press – 25 mins ago

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.
 
Werbung:
The judge specifically ruled that the mandate - where the law requires people to either buy Obamacare or pay a fine - is unconstitutional. He did not make a rulings on the rest of Obamacare.

But that's fine. The mandate is what makes the whole thing possible. And with that gone, the entire things will collapse like the House of Cards it is.

Very few Americans want to sign up for this monstrosity - only people with chronic conditions etc. In other words, people virtually guaranteed to take more out of the system than they put in. With the mandate gone, those are the only people who will sign up... and it will quickly collapse like a rowboat when a whale jumps into (onto) it.

The socialists will of course appeal the ruling, and go all the way to the Supreme Court. That would happen no matter which way the ruling goes. But now, when the Supremes get it, the question they are required to answer is, "Is there good enough reason to overrule and reverse the District Judge's ruling, or not? Did the District Court err in this ruling, or did they rule according to law and the Constitution?"

The socialists are going to have a tough time trying to persuade Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy that the Constitution says the Fed Govt can force Americans to buy something they don't want.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge (Update2)
By Tom Schoenberg and Margaret Cronin Fisk - Dec 13, 2010 9:39 AM PT Tweet inShare.4More
Business ExchangeBuzz up!DiggPrint Email . U.S. President Barack Obama. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg


Play VideoDec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan. Bloomberg's Megan Hughes talks with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Television's "Surveillance Midday." (Source: Bloomberg)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond, Virginia. Photographer: Jay Paul/Bloomberg
The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional because it forces people to buy insurance, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the president’s plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, said today that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid that are unrelated to it. He didn’t order the government to stop work on putting the remainder of the law into effect.

Hudson found the minimum essential coverage provision of the act “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.” Hudson was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.

The decision left intact other provisions of the law and only affects the part that requires most U.S. citizens to maintain minimum health coverage beginning in 2014.
 
Full text of the ruling can be found here:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/121310virginiahcruling.pdf

Apparently the Obama administration tried to justify forcing the American people to buy this socialized medicine program, or else pay a fine, by calling the fine a "tax" when presenting the case to this court. They then pointed out that the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes etc. etc.

Unfortunately, in the text of the law itself, the fine is called a "penalty".

Oops.

One problem liberals constantly face, in trying to tell lies before Federal judges like this, is that you must be 100% perfect when doing it. One inadvertent misstatement, or one mention in a document anywhere that contradicts the lie (also known as "telling the truth"), blows your entire case.

Looks like that's what happened this time.

The best news is, when this case comes before the Supreme Court, the liberals' lie and the documents that refute it, are now part of the record and the liberals won't be able to wish them away. The Supremes will examine all of it, and make a decision on whether this judge was wrong in deciding the Health Care Mandate fine was not a tax but a penalty.

Better luck with your next fib, lefties. This one's blown.

------------------------------------

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/12/13/inside-judge-hudsons-health-care-ruling

Inside Judge Hudson's Health Care Ruling

by Lee Ross
December 13, 2010

A closer reading of Judge Henry Hudson's 42 page opinion reveals that it is a thorough rejection of the Obama Administration's efforts to defend the health care law's individual insurance mandate.

On almost every point, Hudson sides with Virginia's contention that the mandate goes beyond the bounds of the Constitution. In short, Hudson concludes that "[t]he unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police power. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance-or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage-it's about an individual's right to choose to participate."

COMMERCE CLAUSE

The major legal argument presented to the court was whether the mandate violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause which allows the federal government to regulate the financial activities between the states.

"Every application of Commerce Clause power found to be constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court involved some form of action, transaction, or deed placed in motion by an individual or legal entity," Hudson declared on page 23. "The constitutional viability of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision in this case turns on whether or not a person's decision to refuse to purchase health care insurance is such an activity."

Hudson explains the precedents involving the Commerce Clause and its requirement that an activity be regulated. But in this case, it is the INACTIVY of people who choose NOT to buy insurance and get penalized for that decision that Hudson deemed to fall outside federal authority. "[T]he Minimum Essential Coverage Provision appears to forge new ground and extends the Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high water mark."

The ruling rejects the government's view that a decision not to buy health insurance is economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause and that the mandate is critical to the overall law. It is what Hudson calls a theory of aggregation in which the collective individual decisions of all people impacts interstate commerce.

NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE

A corollary argument from the government is that the insurance mandate also falls under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause. This clause allows Congress to implement measures that as Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1819 are "within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional."

But Judge Hudson thought the government's argument here was lacking. "Although the Necessary and Proper Clause vests Congress with broad authority to exercise means, which are not themselves an enumerated power, to implement legislation, it is not without limitation."

On page 19 Hudson concludes that, "f a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such a provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution."

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE

Judge Hudson spends considerable time breaking down the arguments made by the government that the mandate is permissible under the General Welfare Clause which gives the federal government the power to tax.

While Hudson does not deny the taxation authority he says the language Congress used in crafting the legislation shows the penalty for non-compliance is just that-a penalty-not a tax and therefore not subject to the General Welfare Clause.

The $4 billion distinction is that Congress specifically called for taxes in other parts of the law including on so-called "Cadillac plans," medical devices, high-income taxpayers and indoor tanning salons. But on the mandate Congress used the word "penalty" instead.

"Although purportedly grounded in the General Welfare Clause, the notion that the generation of revenue was a significant legislative objective is a transparent afterthought," Hudson wrote. "The legislative purpose underlying this provision was purely regulation of what Congress misperceived to be economic activity."
 
This is the death knell for obozocare. The whole system depended on forcing young people who didn't want insurance to get it anyway. Now the insurance cost curve will turn way up, making clear the consequences of obozo and the leftwinger's ignorant tampering with what they don't understand - the "reform" will collapse like a house of cards.
 
Obamacare is not a solution. Fining people who can't afford health care makes no sense. If they can't afford the bare minimum they certainly won't be able to pay a fine and it will just be a boondoggle of useless paper work and wasted time and money. It is just a poor attempt for this administration to say they have done something about health care for the uninsured. They can say "See we did something about the problem." and that would not be true at all. The simply did something to the problem.

If you are waiting for something like the forms of universal health care that other countries tout you'll still be waiting in 2016 and beyond. The insurance companies and their lobby can't let that happen and they have the backing of the majority of the people. Americans just don't want to pay for someone else's health insurance (even thought we already do that). It is a little strange to me that we don't mind our tax dollar being spent on people we don't know in countries that most know little or nothing about yet we don't want to use those tax dollars to improve the situation in the US. Most of that money we spend on other countries usually winds up in the pockets of their leaders' bank accounts. Yet we never say a word about that.

The Obama administration even wants to raise the monthly premium for Medicare yet they have frozen Social Security. If you were in the work force after 1980 you have already paid a sizable sum into Medicare as well as SS. So where are the returns? Both institutions funds have been bled off by greedy politicians to use elsewhere.

In a sense we already have free medical care at local county hospitals but the administration of the money going to these institutions seems to disappear down one rat-hole or another. Even the VA is in trouble.

The politicians promise change but not reform. I guess change means that the names of the political recipients changes but the system remains pretty much the same. Considering the actual state of the health of the American people reform certainly is in order. BTW I am sure you have noticed as I have the change
that has taken place over the past 2 years....you monthly premium, like mine, has probably risen. Now that IS change but not for the better.
 
that has taken place over the past 2 years....you monthly premium, like mine, has probably risen. Now that IS change but not for the better.

mm hate to break the news to you but for one it did not pass 2 years ago...2...your costs have gone up for the last 30+ years..

and just got me new insurance for the year...same cost...hmm
Its funny you guys are all mad they have to buy insurance...but you know what? not buying insurance does not mean you don't get sick, does not mean you dont end up in hospital...but you all seem very happy pay each month on your premiums for them.

why do you even get insurance? lets all just not have it, and the problem is solved right?


you get few choices in health care
you can let those with no insurance die
You can pay for them with your own insurance costs.
Or the government is going to have to cover the cost. (meaning you again)

but all of the sudden conservatives are worried that people may have to pay for services they get?
 
2...your costs have gone up for the last 30+ years..

and just got me new insurance for the year...same cost...hmm
why do you even get insurance? lets all just not have it, and the problem is solved right?


you get few choices in health care
you can let those with no insurance die
You can pay for them with your own insurance costs.
Or the government is going to have to cover the cost. (meaning you again)

?

1. That is true. Costs have risen every year but because the government said they were going to work on that...did they? Not in my case and that's the case I have to consider.

2. I am glad your costs didn't rise but do you still have the same coverage? Naturally the costs will rise over time but can we keep up with the pace they are rising at. That's the question. You are speaking of yourself...and that's what you should do. I am doing the same.


3. Your sarcasm is noted.
Yes we will continue paying for these costs but again can we keep it up?... and for how long? There has to be a better way than what we have right now but this administration, while offering rhectoric on the subject has done little in the way of reform. Granted little is better than none but this may well be a case of "too little too late."
 
1. That is true. Costs have risen every year but because the government said they were going to work on that...did they? Not in my case and that's the case I have to consider.

2. I am glad your costs didn't rise but do you still have the same coverage? Naturally the costs will rise over time but can we keep up with the pace they are rising at. That's the question. You are speaking of yourself...and that's what you should do. I am doing the same.


3. Your sarcasm is noted.
Yes we will continue paying for these costs but again can we keep it up?... and for how long? There has to be a better way than what we have right now but this administration, while offering rhectoric on the subject has done little in the way of reform. Granted little is better than none but this may well be a case of "too little too late."

no one said it was going to go down the day it was passed...half of the cost saving parts are not even in effect yet..

its the same plan 100%

there is a better way...its called public option or single payer...but both would not have got passed...at least now kids have coverage, people with preexisting condtions are covered...you cant get dropped ..for getting sick....
of course to get those covered...someone has to pay....like...people who where not paying for health care but still got it.
 
Werbung:
This is the death knell for obozocare.

If the Supremes agree, then THAT'S the death knell.

But now the Supremes will have to decide whether a fine that the law itself refers to as a "Penalty", is actually a tax and NOT a penalty.

Poor liberals. Blew another attempt at fibbing - the law itself tells the truth about what the Democrats are trying to impose on us.
 
Back
Top