A federal appeals court has sided with 26 states in their challenge to President Barack Obama’s health care reform.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled Friday that a provision of the law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or face an annual penalty is unconstitutional. The ruling affirmed an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of northern Florida.
[…]
Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge Joel Dubina authored Friday’s opinion and was joined by Judge Frank Hull in the majority. Judge Stanley Marcus voted against the states.
“The individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional,” Dubina wrote. “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”
In January, Vinson found that Congress was unconstitutionally regulating economic inactivity and, because the mandate is too integral a part to be separated, he voided the entire legislation. He called it “a difficult decision to reach.”
Friday’s decision, though, did not void the entire legislation.
“Excising the individual mandate from the Act does not prevent the remaining provisions from being ‘fully operative as a law,'” Dubina wrote.
“In light of the stand-alone nature of hundreds of the Act’s provisions and their manifest lack of connection to the individual mandate, the plaintiffs have not met the heavy burden needed to rebut the presumption of severability.”
Baby steps.
Shame this wasn’t announced yesterday, then I might have watched the debate.
Need the severability issue to get cleaned up, or most of this abomination will drag itself into effect. Gah.
But, as Jeff said, baby steps…. in the right direction.
Obama loves the Constitution like OJ loved Nichole.
“the heavy burden”
. . . to think, I’ll warrant of the panel.
How did the Court find severability when Congress chose to not include that?
“How did the Court find severability when Congress chose to not include that?”
they grade on a curve
#5 – The court found severability via judicial restraint, which is the principle that allows them to edit legislation, as opposed to writing legislation.
Because they are not the same thing.
/sarc
It merits two mentions, Jeff. No worries.
The tricky thing here is that the individual mandate is the linchpin that makes the law financially viable – if you get rid of the mandate, which guarantees cash in the form of indentured customers to insurance companies, while keeping the other provisions that mandate coverage, then they get screwed. And remember, courts aren’t looking at the other provisions yet.
It can’t though. Unless this is a fabulous reverse Cloward-Piven, this thing doesn’t work without the mandate. They either repeal it, or they crash the health insurance companies.
It’s on.
I know it’s an interesting and important legal question, but if the math doesn’t work, it’s secondary.
Textual!
Fucking bastards.
Text can be anything that has had intent poured into it and the intent is what matters not what fucking text was used to express the intended thought.