This healthcare bill may unravel before it comes into effect.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...parts-of-health-care-reform-unconstitutional/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...parts-of-health-care-reform-unconstitutional/
BREAKING: Virginia judge rules parts of health care reform unconstitutional
By: CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears
Washington (CNN) – A federal judge in Virginia has ruled parts of the sweeping health care reform effort led by President Obama to be unconstitutional. This is the first federal court to strike down the law, contradicting other recent rulings the law was permissible. The key issue of contention was the "individual mandate" requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance by 2014.
The case is Virginia v. Sebelius.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2
Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- NEW: The federal judge was appointed by George W. Bush in 2002
- A federal judge has found the individual health care purchase mandate unconstitutional
- Other judges have found the mandate constitutional
- The dispute is likely headed for the Supreme Court
RELATED TOPICS
(CNN) -- A Virginia federal judge on Monday found a key part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law unconstitutional -- setting the stage for a protracted legal struggle likely to wind up in the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014. The Justice Department is expected to challenge the judge's findings in a federal appeals court.
Hudson's opinion contradicts other court rulings finding the mandate constitutionally permissible.
"An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach" of the U.S. Constitution," Hudson wrote. "No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance."
A federal judge in Virginia earlier this month had ruled in favor of the administration over the purchase requirement issue, mirroring conclusions reached by a judge in Michigan.
Hudson's ruling raised strong doubts about the government's authority to mandate the purchase of insurance coverage for individuals and employers.
Virginia officials had argued that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not give the government the authority to force Americans to purchase a commercial product -- like health insurance -- that they may not want or need. They equated such a requirement to a burdensome regulation of "inactivity."
Virginia is one of the few states in the country with a specific law saying residents cannot be forced to buy insurance.
Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March, after promoting Democratic-led health reform efforts for months after taking office. The law is widely considered to be the signature legislative accomplishment of the president's first two years in office.
Among other things, the measure was designed to help millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans receive adequate and affordable health care through a series of government-imposed mandates and subsidies. The federal government stated in court briefs that 45 million Americans last year were without health insurance, roughly 15 percent of the country's population.
Critics have equated the measure to socialized medicine, fearing that a bloated government bureaucracy will result in higher taxes and diminished health care services. About two dozen challenges have been filed in federal courts nationwide.
On November 8, the Supreme Court rejected the first constitutional challenge to the health care reform effort, resisting a California conservative group's appeal. The justices refused to get involved at a relatively early stage of the legal process.
The high court rarely accepts cases before they have been thoroughly reviewed by lower courts.
Legal experts say they expect several of the larger issues in the health care debate to ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. A review from the high court may not happen, however, for at least a year or two.
The highest-profile lawsuit may come from Florida. State officials there have objectd not only to the individual coverage mandate, but also to a requirement forcing states to expand Medicaid. Florida's litigation is supported by 19 other states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Health care reform -- a top Democratic priority since the Truman administration -- passed the current Congress in a series of virtual party-line votes. Opponent derisively labeled the measure "Obamacare." Republican leaders -- who captured the House of Representatives in the midterm elections -- have vowed to overturn or severely trim the law.
The 63-year-old Hudson was named to the bench in 2002 by former President George W. Bush. He is a former state and federal prosecutor.
"While this court's decision may set the initial judicial course of this case, it will certainly not be the final word," Hudson wrote in October.
The case decided Monday is Virginia v. Sebelius (3:10-cv-00188).
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter