Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 13 Dec '10 17:26
    Breaking: Virginia Judge Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
    December 13, 2010 12:09 P.M.
    By Daniel Foster
    According to multiple reports, a federal judge in Virginia has ruled that part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — is unconstitutional.

    The ruling by District Judge Henry Hudson says Congress “exceeded its authority” by requiring individuals to purchase health care coverage under the “individual mandate.” It is the first federal ruling against the law.

    Suit was brought by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli.
  2. 13 Dec '10 17:28
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Breaking: Virginia Judge Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
    December 13, 2010 12:09 P.M.
    By Daniel Foster
    According to multiple reports, a federal judge in Virginia has ruled that part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — is unconstitutional.

    The ruling by District Judge Henry Hudson says Congress “exceeded ...[text shortened]... federal ruling against the law.

    Suit was brought by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli.
    just like I have been saying all along.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Dec '10 17:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Breaking: Virginia Judge Rules Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
    December 13, 2010 12:09 P.M.
    By Daniel Foster
    According to multiple reports, a federal judge in Virginia has ruled that part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — is unconstitutional.

    The ruling by District Judge Henry Hudson says Congress “exceeded ...[text shortened]... federal ruling against the law.

    Suit was brought by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli.
    uther: It is the first federal ruling against the law.

    Two other federal judges have ruled to the contrary:

    U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

    http://www.wvec.com/news/politics/Judge-in-Va-strikes-down-federal-health-care-law-111792264.html
  4. Standard member RevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    13 Dec '10 17:46
    What 'process' existed before Kaiser Permanente were appearingly given free reign to make good health more appropriate, and better accessible, to the well covered ..I refer to the Nixon \ Frost interviews and taped recordings..
  5. 13 Dec '10 17:54 / 1 edit
    What were the reasons given by the judge?

    And doesn't this also make Medicare and Medicaid unconstitutional?
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Dec '10 18:01
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What were the reasons given by the judge?

    And doesn't this also make Medicare and Medicaid unconstitutional?
    As far as I can determine (I'm still trying to locate the actual decision), he merely struck down the requirement that individuals had to purchase health insurance. Obviously, that has no effect on Medicare and Medicaid.
  7. 13 Dec '10 18:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As far as I can determine (I'm still trying to locate the actual decision), he merely struck down the requirement that individuals had to purchase health insurance. Obviously, that has no effect on Medicare and Medicaid.
    Well, that depends on the reasons given. After all, taxpayers are currently required to buy Medicare/Medicaid insurance as well.
  8. 13 Dec '10 18:13 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, that depends on the reasons given. After all, taxpayers are currently required to buy Medicare/Medicaid insurance as well.
    thats not the same thing. thats basically a tax and you are paying into Medicare/Medicaid.Same as SS.

    This is congress stretching the commerce clause way beyond its meaning and forcing individuals to by a product.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Dec '10 18:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, that depends on the reasons given. After all, taxpayers are currently required to buy Medicare/Medicaid insurance as well.
    I haven't read the decision (and don't plan to), but it appears to be based on the argument (very solid one, I might add), that the individual mandate is beyond Congress' power to regulate commerce, upon which this and most other economic legislation is based.

    The Supreme Court will decide this case at some point and so all these district court cases are of marginal relevance. Today's decision does indicate that the commerce argument is non-frivolous. Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, I think that this is close to a toss up when it does get to the All Stars. I might even make strike down a very slight favorite.

    Edit: Medicare and Medicaid are different. Those are federal expenditures without individual mandates.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    13 Dec '10 18:32
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    As far as I can determine (I'm still trying to locate the actual decision), he merely struck down the requirement that individuals had to purchase health insurance. Obviously, that has no effect on Medicare and Medicaid.
    http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/hudson-ruling.pdf
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Dec '10 18:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    I haven't read the decision (and don't plan to), but it appears to be based on the argument (very solid one, I might add), that the individual mandate is beyond Congress' power to regulate commerce, upon which this and most other economic legislation is based.

    The Supreme Court will decide this case at some point and so all these district court cases are of care and Medicaid are different. Those are federal expenditures without individual mandates.
    The full text is here: http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2010/12/13/virginia-judge-strikes-down-obamacare-insurance-mandate/

    It's 42 pages long, so this is a quick analysis. The decision:

    1) Said the mandate wasn't "economic activity" because not buying insurance is "passive" and therefore not an activity effecting Commerce;

    2) Said it wasn't a tax for rather dubious reasons, mostly based on statements made at the time of passage and the deletion of the word "tax" in the final bill. It relied a lot on Child Labor Tax Case a dated precedent from the era of Supreme Court laissez faire substantive due process;

    3) Severed the provision from the rest of the health care reform; in other words even if this decision was upheld in its entirety, the only result would be that the individual mandate would be scrapped.

    I don't particularly care for the individual mandate, so that's no big deal to me. However, I do find it very troubling that this judge engaged in severability analysis which apparently means that the drafters of the health reform bill did not include a boilerplate severability clause i.e. virtually all significant legislation these days has a provision stating that if one part of the law is unconstitutional the rest stays in effect. Absent such a provision, the courts have to determine what the legislators intended in the event of a particular part being found unconstitutional.

    So it seems the health reform drafters have actually, amazingly, left open the possibility that the entire law could be voided if one provision is found unconstitutional. I am staggered by such incompetence and malfeasance.
  12. 13 Dec '10 18:46
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The full text is here: http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2010/12/13/virginia-judge-strikes-down-obamacare-insurance-mandate/

    It's 42 pages long, so this is a quick analysis. The decision:

    1) Said the mandate wasn't "economic activity" because not buying insurance is "passive" and therefore not an activity effecting Commer ...[text shortened]... n its entirety, the only result would be that the individual mandate would be scrapped.
    And the individual mandate is the crux of the problem. I have heard no one say they dont want health care/insurance reform. I have been saying all along it unconstitutional and I am just a blue collar working stiff w/no law degree.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Dec '10 18:50
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    And the individual mandate is the crux of the problem. I have heard no one say they dont want health care/insurance reform. I have been saying all along it unconstitutional and I am just a blue collar working stiff w/no law degree.
    So you think if there was no individual mandate, all these Republican Attorney Generals wouldn't have filed a lawsuit challenging the HCR? Please. They would have complained about something else and you would have been on this Forum screaming about what you were told to scream about.
  14. 13 Dec '10 18:56
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So you think if there was no individual mandate, all these Republican Attorney Generals wouldn't have filed a lawsuit challenging the HCR? Please. They would have complained about something else and you would have been on this Forum screaming about what you were told to scream about.
    I dont know why you keep thinking I am a Republican. I am not. You can have conservative values w/out being a Republican believe it or not.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    13 Dec '10 18:59
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    I dont know why you keep thinking I am a Republican. I am not. You can have conservative values w/out being a Republican believe it or not.
    I didn't say you were a Republican; I said (in effect) you were a brainless parrot.

    I apologize if my sentence could somehow be twisted into saying you were a Republican.