Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Looks like they felt that, since the rest of the law hangs on the mandate that people must buy insurance or pay Fed penalties, that makes the mandate OK.
It takes all kinds. On to the Supreme Court.
BTW, has anyone EVER answered the question that Judge Graham asks below (5th paragraph)?
------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576415803689791070.html
Appeals Court in Ohio Upholds Health Law
JUNE 29, 2011, 1:26 P.M. ET.
by PETER LANDERS
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Wednesday upheld the health-care law passed by Congress last year, saying the law's requirement for most Americans to carry insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional.
The vote was 2-1 on the three-judge panel on the key question of whether the insurance requirement exceeded Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The majority concluded that it did not.
"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce Martin wrote. The opinion upheld a district-court ruling that also found the law constitutional.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote separately in a concurring opinion, saying the plaintiffs challenging the law have failed to make their case for now. However, he said the ruling didn't preclude people from bringing challenges after the insurance requirement goes into effect and it becomes clear how the law affects particular individuals.
Judge James Graham dissented on the central Commerce Clause issue. "If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be," he wrote. "What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?"
The case is 10-2388 from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Two more major health-law cases are pending before different federal appeals courts.
It takes all kinds. On to the Supreme Court.
BTW, has anyone EVER answered the question that Judge Graham asks below (5th paragraph)?
------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576415803689791070.html
Appeals Court in Ohio Upholds Health Law
JUNE 29, 2011, 1:26 P.M. ET.
by PETER LANDERS
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Wednesday upheld the health-care law passed by Congress last year, saying the law's requirement for most Americans to carry insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional.
The vote was 2-1 on the three-judge panel on the key question of whether the insurance requirement exceeded Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The majority concluded that it did not.
"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce Martin wrote. The opinion upheld a district-court ruling that also found the law constitutional.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote separately in a concurring opinion, saying the plaintiffs challenging the law have failed to make their case for now. However, he said the ruling didn't preclude people from bringing challenges after the insurance requirement goes into effect and it becomes clear how the law affects particular individuals.
Judge James Graham dissented on the central Commerce Clause issue. "If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be," he wrote. "What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?"
The case is 10-2388 from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Two more major health-law cases are pending before different federal appeals courts.
