Federal judge rules ObamaCare unconstitutional

The federal judge presiding over the case challenging ObamaCare that was brought by twenty-six states has ruled that it is unconstitutional, null and void.

Judge Vinson agreed with the states bringing the suit that the law was unconstitutional in that Congress has no authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance by individuals, or to make them face a penalty if they fail to do so.

The argument centers around the Constitution's "commerce clause", which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.  The administration, and Democrats supporting the law claim that the mandate qualifies as a regulation of interstate commerce, but conservatives have pointed out that the mandate to purchase a product is essentially a regulation of activity that has not occurred.

In fact, the judge in the case speculated that, if the commerce clause gives Congress such power, there's nothing that prevents it from mandating that Americans eat Broccoli, or any other activity it wishes.

From the Washington Times:

At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

Attorneys for President Obama‘s administration had argued that the health care system was part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.

The fact is that the Constitution grants Congress specific, limited powers. To accept that the commerce clause allows Congress to command Americans to engage in any commercial activity would effectively undermine any notion of limited powers, even federalism itself.  The Constitution may as well not exist.

For its part, in addition to the argument that Congress did have such power, administration went further:

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed. ...

How's that for federalism?  Just "who" would have "standing" in a case of an over-reach of Congress beyond its Constitutional boundaries if not the state governments that created Congress and the entire federal government to begin with?

So far the states that are challenging the law in this specific suit are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.  (Virginia brought a different suit which also resulted in an "unconstitutional" verdict)

In the end (unfortunately) this issue will be resolved the US Supreme Court.  "Unfortunately" because in this case, it's a little like suing someone and having their brother be the judge in the case.  The states are suing one branch of the federal government, and another branch decides their fate.

As others have recently pointed out, it is hard to imagine the people who participated in the Boston Tea Party as agreeing to the creation of a government that had the power to force them to drink the tea they threw into Boston Harbor.


If you haven't done so yet, be sure to join our campaign to REPEAL ObamaCare.  And if you have, share the link with others and encourage them to join and contact their members of Congress.


Syndicate content