Judge Rules Parts of Obama’s Health Care Reform Unconstitutional
By Krystle Weeks | Monday, December 13th, 2010 | PolicyThis is a major victory for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Virginia. U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled in favor of Virginia’s challenge to the federal health care law by striking down the individual mandate that requires nearly every American to purchase health insurance or face a steep penalty.
According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Hudson denied the petition to stop the law from being implemented in the state.
Cuccinelli, in a note to supporters said: “This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution.”
The decision also sparked responses from George Allen, who is considering a run for U.S. Senate against Jim Webb in 2012 and RPV Chairman Pat Mullins.
Allen said:
“This case is a reminder that Sen. Jim Webb ignored the views and values of the people of Virginia with his many votes, including the one for Senate passage last Christmas eve, for this unfair, harmful, unconstitutional federal government takeover of health care and its odious mandates.
“This decision is a victory for the rights and prerogatives of Virginians and potentially people throughout our United States.
“I heartily commend Judge Hudson for his sound, Constitutionally-based decision and also thank Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli for defending liberty against federal usurpation and dictates.”
Mullins said:
“Today’s ruling is not just a victory for the Commonwealth of Virginia, but for our entire country. Attorney General Cuccinelli and his team recognized early that the legislation that came to be known as ObamaCare was more than just an ill-advised government take-over of the entire health care system – it was an assault on the very idea of limited government.
If Congress can require Americans to purchase health insurance, there are truly no limits to what government can do. The entire concept of enumerated powers – one of the pillars of Federalism – would be fatally undercut.
Voters understood from the very beginning that this legislation was fatally flawed. But Democrats in Congress, including our own Democrat Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner not only failed to listen to the voters, but also failed in their most fundamental responsibility: to protect the Constitution.
While there are still multiple hearings left before the U.S. Supreme Court issues a final ruling on this case, Monday’s decision is a clear indication that Virginia’s case is strong and will eventually prevail.”
Cross posted at Crystal Clear Conservative
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Growing up in Maryland typically does not yield a Republican. Fortunately, Krystle Weeks was one of the lucky few booted to the Commonwealth for her staunch conservative views. From an early age, she has been debating politics, and since 2006, she has been involved here in the Commonwealth helping Republican candidates to victory. Aside from politics, Krystle is a runner and a dynamite cook. You can email her here. Krystle also blogs at Crystal Clear Conservative and Charm Offensive Cooking.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
19 Responses to "Judge Rules Parts of Obama’s Health Care Reform Unconstitutional"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jason Kenney, Bearing Drift. Bearing Drift said: Web: Judge Rules Parts of Obama’s Health Care Reform Unconstitutional http://bit.ly/eTRNGW [...]
The courts system has become a joke…
Fantastic effort by our wonderful Att. General Ken Cuccinelli! Thanks Ken!
If the only part of the bill that was struck was the individual mandate, it’s now a better law. But one insurance companies will now spend mega buck to have repealed. I think Judge Hudson is probably wrong on serverability.
Without the mandate the rest of the law (except for maybe age extensions and things of that nature) becomes useless. The Obama administration knew that the heart was the mandate, without it, the whole monstrosity falls apart.
Of course, this is just the opinion of one federal judge; more opinions will follow. Certainly, social security and medicare/medicare would appear to be precedent in providing for the general welfare, and I believe Congress’s intent was the same for the health care bill.
Other judges will weigh in, and perhaps so will the Supreme Court, but in the end, this imperfect bill will be implemented because it corrects some of the major inequities of the past “system” which became so burdensome on the treasury and on citizens. After all, universal coverage benefits all of us; it keeps our citizens healthier and more productive.
Good health care should not be reserved solely for the rich or for those who have a job. Citizens should not be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, nor because they used too much health care benefits. We who have insurance should not be forced to pay more for those who refuse to buy coverage.
This bill would have been better if the republicans had not tried to obstruct it, but it was the best it could be with their strident opposition.
@William, True.
You win legislatively if you have a judge in your pocket. Good going for KC, but he had a friendly judge working this one. We’ll see whose court Obama and company can shift this legal battle to next. Here’s hoping, perhaps futilely, for an honest judge.
There is nothing good about mandating citizens to purchase products and services from private corporations. The mandate pushes us closer to Corporatism.
James is right. Additionally, if you oppose corruption, bribery, unfair contracts only for the elite, do you REALLY want the government to be allowed to tell everyone what they must buy and from whom? Would Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be your shining example of how well Govt can run the financial world. Just how well is your city budget doing?
The general welfare nor the commerce clause trump individual rights. If govt power to regulate commerce is neverending, I guess you can mandate all that all Irish guys must only purchase tickets on certain light rail cars. India native only movie theaters? So, the govt can do ANYTHING for general welfare or under the commerce clause?
What? Now you do care about the Natural Rights protected by our founding documents? Good……mission accomplished.
My right to personal health is dependent upon the health of those around me. If the health of waiters, or salespersons, or gym attendants, or mechanics, or the teachers of my children, their playmates, their parents, etc. is poor because of the lack of available health care, my personal right to health and welfare is in jeopardy. Universal health insurance is a means to ensure the health of every american, and to me, it is as american as apple pie.
Your personal health is dependent on your choice of companions, your personal habits(cleanliness, smoking, drugs etc.), your diet, excercise, and genetics.
Protecting you from the common cold is not governments job. If you make good choices you will deal with them fairly well. It is actually healthy and provides a natural defense if you are exposed to germs when healthy enough to combat them.
The govt can’t protect your health and welfare on such trivial matterd as you losing a few bucks because your mechanic got sick and you were as a consequence late for your busniness meeting, costing you the deal. I really am not sure just how much you want government to micromanage your life……
I do want a better system. We need to look at measures that reduce the cost and fix inefficiencies. Some of the things James Quigley hinted at. Finding some method of portabiility and means to deal better with pre-existing conditions would be great. The current “reform” when it is fully implemented will not solve the problems. You will just have different ones. Rationing and less medical innovations a likely outcome.
All this bull about the commerce clause. You kinda have to at least start with competition across state lines in health care before you even feel justification to even hint at that arguement. Allowing competition alone won’t fix everything, but it will improve it. I agree that we have work to do.
Well Britt, that sounds like rationalization to me. Fact is, my health, and yours, is dependent upon those around us, and if health is not a function of government, I don’t know what really is. Just as immunizations are crucial, so is the prevention of disease and the provision of standards for the health care system. I think that when this review is over and done with, this Law will be upheld, and it should be as well.
Liberals will find all kinds of ways to blame someone else…but blaming others for their health is a stretch. That elastic is about to break.
@James Once you have the government involved to that degree, it is completely government. When an insurance company cannot sell across state lines, corporate can’t be blamed for that free market principle even though they may have lobbied against it.
@Barrett
The fundamental question is this: Does one individual in our society have the right of another individual’s labor? If you believe that is so, that principle should be applied to universally to all products and services exchanged in the commercial marketplace.
No, the fundamental question is does Congress have the power to regulate commerce. I think it does, and I think health insurance is simply a means to protect the general health and welfare of all of us. The system as construed before the health care act transferred costs to me, my family, our employees, from those who gamed the system and refused to buy health insurance or pay for services rendered. That violates the fairness doctrine. Congress acted to correct this violation. For me, the act is fair and just.
No, the fundamental question is:
“How far does the power of Congress go with regard to the Commerce Clause?”
Even the judges on both sides say that is the fundamental question.
Mike, I thought the Fairness Doctrine applied to political commentary over the air waves. That and it isn’t law, only on the Dem wish list.
And just because your premium supersized fast food meal at your favorite restaurant cost you more because demand for that premium is lacking, that doesn’t mean I can be compelled to buy it just to make you happy.
Virginia can require all of its citizens to have health insurance.
Health care reform should be handles by the states not by the federal government.
@John, Corporations can be blamed when you have corrupt government officials writing legislation due to the influence and bribery of corporate lobbyists.
Our system is entirely corrupted, which is why we don’t see a freer market in healthcare. It is also why the Democrats passed a healthcare bill which forces people to purchase insurance from private corporations.
For a variety of reasons one needs money to win elections, which means a candidate has his own pot of money or he dances to the tune of corporate interests in order to win an election.
Even though I with you in saying that there is crony capitalism happening. I’m not denying that.
Corrupt government officials is to blame for corrupt government officials writing to corporate lobbyists. …and it’s not just corporations because unions and activist groups are not exactly saints either.
@John, true. Special interest groups might be a better label. I like the idea of trade unions for private workers. For instance, let’s say local plumbers create a union to protect themselves against bad legislation and to push for a freer market for plumbers.
The problem with government and corporate unions is that such unions ultimately fight for the continuance and propping up of the organization they are a part of to the detriment on non-unionized organizations customer.
Leave your response