View Full Version : FL Fed judge rules Health Care Act Unconstitutional
He ruled that all sections are void. Unfortunately he did not enjoin the Gov't to enact it pending appeal....
IIRC, it wasn't enforceable until 2014 so it would more than likely go before SCOTUS by then anyway. I would imagine that is the direction it is on now for sure. It will certainly get interesting.
Federal judge strikes down healthcare law
By Jason Millman - 01/31/11 03:11 PM ET
A federal judge in Florida struck down the entire healthcare reform law Monday afternoon, ruling that the requirement for individuals to purchase insurance is unconstitutional and is too central to making the law function.
In the most high-profile challenge to the reform law yet, U.S. District Jude Roger Vinson ruled that the so-called individual mandate exceeds congressional power. Further, he said the whole law cannot stand because the law depends on the mandate to work.
"I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit,” Vinson wrote.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/141283-federal-judge-strikes-down-healthcare-law
********************************************
By Tom Brown
MIAMI | Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:28pm EST
MIAMI (Reuters) - A judge in Florida on Monday became the second judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, ruled that the reform law's so-called "individual mandate" went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote.
He was referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional. The issue will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs represent more than half the U.S. states, so the Pensacola case has more prominence than two dozen lawsuits filed in federal courts over the healthcare law.
The healthcare overhaul, a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aims to expand health insurance to cover millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing costs. Administration officials insist it is constitutional and needed to stem huge projected increases in healthcare costs.
Two other federal judges have rejected challenges to the individual mandate.
But a federal district judge in Richmond, Virginia, last month struck down that central provision of the law in a case in that state, saying it invited an "unbridled exercise of federal police powers."
The provision is key to the law's mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured. Officials argue it is only by requiring healthy people to purchase policies that they can help pay for reforms, including a mandate that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be refused coverage.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE70U6RY20110131?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews
I've got no problems with that particular ruling. :lifter
Unfortunately he did not enjoin the Gov't to enact it pending appeal....
That part is disappointing. But I imagine it won't be long before it goes to the Supreme Court.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-obama-healthcare-20110201,0,5672905.story?track=rss
Judge rules Obama healthcare law unconstitutional
The ruling by a federal judge in Florida goes beyond a 2010 ruling that the law's insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Two other federal courts previously ruled the law and its mandate were permissible. The stage is now set for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
By Noam N. Levey and David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
January 31, 2011, 12:39 p.m.
Reporting from Washington —
A federal judge in Florida dealt President Obama's healthcare overhaul another legal blow Monday, ruling that the entire law is unconstitutional because of a requirement in the legislation that Americans get health insurance starting in 2014.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's widely anticipated decision goes beyond a separate ruling by a federal judge in Virginia who last year ruled only that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional.
In separate lawsuits, two other federal courts have ruled that the law and its insurance mandate are permissible under the so-called Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
The divided opinions set the stage for a potentially landmark constitutional debate in the higher courts, with a final decision expected in the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps as soon as next year.
Vinson, an appointee of President Reagan, signaled for months that he would back the challenge to the law filed by Florida's Republican attorney general and joined by 25 other states.
And in his ruling Monday, he said he had no choice but to invalidate the law.
"The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case," Vinson wrote in the 78-page ruling. "Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. … I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate."
Vinson rejected a second claim by the states that the healthcare overhaul unlawfully forced them to expand their Medicaid insurance programs for the poor, another key part of the new law.
And he declined to stop implementation of the law, as the plaintiffs requested.
Vinson's decision comes six weeks after a similar ruling in December by a federal judge in Virginia, who backed a lawsuit by that state's attorney general. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, a Republican, also concluded the insurance mandate was unconstitutional, though he declined to halt implementation of the law while higher courts considered the case.
The U.S. 4th Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., has agreed to expedite its review of the Virginia case, scheduling hearings for May.
Other federal judges in Michigan and Florida — both appointed by President Clinton — have concluded that Congress had the authoruty to require Americans to get health insurance.
With some exceptions, the unprecedented insurance mandate will require Americans to get health insurance and penalize those who do not.
The requirement was designed to spread risk more broadly and control insurance premiums, enabling the federal government to offer consumers other protections, such as prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to patients with preexisting medical conditions.
Without a mandate, healthy Americans would be able to avoid buying insurance until they got sick. That phenomenon, which has occurred in several states that have guaranteed coverage without any insurance requirement, has helped drive up premiums.
But the mandate remains the most unpopular feature of the healthcare overhaul and has helped galvanize a nationwide Republican attack on the new law.
Nineteen states joined the Florida suit last year: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
And in January, six more states joined the lawsuit after new GOP governors took office — Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine and Iowa.
Except for Louisiana, the states are represented by Republican attorneys general or governors.
The National Federation of Independent Business, a leading conservative small-business group, also joined the suit.
Several dozen leading consumer groups, medical associations and patient advocates have joined the Obama administration in defending the new law.
These include: the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Diabetes Assn., the American Heart Assn., the American Nurses Assn., the American Medical Assn., the American Hospital Assn., the Catholic Health Assn. of the United States, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Families USA, Consumers Union and the March of Dimes Foundation.
noam.levey@latimes.com
david.savage@latimes.com
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47917837/Obamacare-Unconstitutional-Ruling-1-31-11
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JDAS-8DMNTD/$file/VinsonRuling1312011.pdf
Unfortunately he did not enjoin the Gov't to enact it pending appeal....
It seems that he did:
(5) Injunction
The last issue to be resolved is the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief enjoining implementation of the Act, which can be disposed of very quickly.
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary” [Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456U.S. 305, 312, 102 S. Ct. 1798, 72 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1982)], and “drastic” remedy [Aaron v. S.E.C., 446 U.S. 680, 703, 100 S. Ct. 1945, 64 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1980)(Burger, J., concurring)]. It is even more so when the party to be enjoined is the federal government, for there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. On Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir.2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir.1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . .since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
Page 75.
Pat
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47917837/Obamacare-Unconstitutional-Ruling-1-31-11
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JDAS-8DMNTD/$file/VinsonRuling1312011.pdf
You beat me to it. I was just getting ready to post that. IMO, this is a very well written and researched opinion. He goes into great historical detail of the Commerce Clause and relevant cases since its inactment. He also explains the standing of various parties quite well. I think Judge Vinson did an admirable job with his decision.
Snaquebite
01-31-2011, 19:55
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/02/democratic-lawmaker-dont-worry-constitution-health-care-overhaul/
Confronted by an angry blogger with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents that he doesn't care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.
Blogger AllahPundit from the conservative Web site HotAir.com asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."
The Constitution has no meaning to a lot of our politicians.
Support and Defend: Understanding the Oath of Office
Published on January 3, 2011 by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.
Excerpts:
"At the start of each new Congress, all Members beginning a new term of office (the entire House of Representative and one-third of the Senate) take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. In doing so, the Members of Congress perform an act that harkens back to the country’s founding and its first principles. As it applies to Members of Congress, the “Oaths Clause” plays an important role by obliging them to observe the limits of their authority and act in accordance with the powers delegated to them by the Constitution. The oath also serves as a solemn reminder that the duty to uphold the Constitution is not the exclusive or final responsibility of the Judiciary but is shared by Congress and the President (per Article II, Section 1) as co-equal branches of the United States government. This essay is adapted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for a new series providing constitutional guidance for lawmakers.
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….”
— Article VI, Clause 3"
"Under current law any individual elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, except the President, shall take the following oath: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” (33 U.S.C. § 3331.) By federal statute, all state officers shall take an oath in the simple form first promulgated in 1789. (4 U.S.C. § 101.)"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/Support-and-Defend-Understanding-the-Oath-of-Office
************************************************** **********
The Oath of Office
A Historical Guide
to Moral Leadership
Lt Col Kenneth Keskel, USAF
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/keskel.html
Excerpt:
"The first law of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the first Congress on 1 June 1789, was statute 1, chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.1 The founding fathers agreed upon the importance of ensuring that officials promised their allegiance; indeed, very little debate occurred before the first Congress passed this statute.2 Although the wording of the military officer’s oath has changed several times in the past two centuries, the basic foundation has withstood the test of time. The current oath is more than a mere formality that adds to the pageantry of a commissioning or promotion ceremony- it provides a foundation for leadership decisions.3
One finds numerous oaths in our nation. Just before commissioning or enlisting, every officer candidate and enlistee recites an oath. The president of the United States takes an oath before assuming duties. Senators, congressmen, judges, and other government officials take oaths of office. New citizens of the United States take a naturalization oath. Many schoolchildren take an oath or pledge allegiance to the flag. Although its members are not required to swear or affirm before going into combat, the US military developed a code of conduct to guide servicemen. When an officer is promoted, the promotion ceremony often includes a restatement of the officer’s oath.
The military officer’s oath is a combination of constitutional requirement, historical influence, and centuries-old custom. To better appreciate the oath, one must understand its history. Toward that end, this article first provides a brief, historical background on the oath of office and then examines its specific wording as well as the ways in which it provides guidance, including moral direction, to military officers.4"
dadof18x'er
02-01-2011, 05:52
start the morning with a smile :D
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
GratefulCitizen
02-11-2011, 22:56
Apparently the executive branch doesn't need a valid law.
The law, in it's entirety, was ruled unconstitutional.
Never mind that whole "constitutional" thing.
On with the implementation.
This is the type of thing which leads to a government losing legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
Without their willing compliance, all that's left is the threat of force.
From the federal register:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-11/pdf/2011-3109.pdf
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Parts 144 and 147
[CMS–9981–P]
RIN 0950–AA20
Student Health Insurance Coverage
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document contains a
proposed regulation that would
establish rules for student health
insurance coverage under the Public
Health Service Act and the Affordable
Care Act.
Another cartoon from my Dad.:D
Excellent cartoon, lindy.
Recall that Judge Vinson, in his opinion, suggested that he believed that a declaratory judgment was the functional equivalent of an injunction - at least as applied to the federal government.
Justice Dept. Asks Judge to Clarify Health Care Ruling After Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact Law
Published February 17, 2011| FoxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/alaska-governor-refuses-enact-obamacare/#ixzz1ESNxrdmb
Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday he will not implement President Obama's health care overhaul because a federal judge in Florida ruled it unconstitutional, prompting the Justice Department to take the case back to the judge.
Attorneys for the Obama administration filed what is known as a motion to clarify late Thursday, asking U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to make clear that states cannot ignore the new health care law while his ruling is being appealed.
Copy of the Justice Department’s motion in link below:
http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/U.S.+motion+to+clarify.pdf
From page 6 of 19 in Justice Department's motion:
"...Given (a) the wide-ranging and indeterminate consequences that would occur if the declaratory judgment were assumed to have immediate injunction-like effect; (b) the Court’s acknowledgment that it was deviating from the ‘normal rule’ of severability; (c) the concededly unique nature of the Court’s judgment, see, e.g., Op. 74; and (d) the fact that the Court declined to impose an injunction, see Op. 75, defendants do not interpret the Court’s order as requiring them to immediately cease operating programs, implementing Medicare reforms, collecting taxes, extending grants, providing tax credits, and enforcing duties created by the ACA."
Judge Roger Vinson on Friday, February, 18th, entered an order in response to the Justice Department's motion to clarify his earlier (Jan 31) judgment.
Expect more filings within the week - and more responses.
A copy of the Judge's order is located at link below:
http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/Vinson-filing-order-2-18-11.pdf