Appeals Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate
By Norman Leahy | Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 | PolicyThe Sixth circuit Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, has upheld the individual mandate within the Obama administration’s health insurance law, “claiming that Congress has the power to force individuals to buy health insurance under its authority to regulate interstate commerce.”
The decision can be found here.
(Cross-posted at Score Radio Network)
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Norman Leahy
Norm Leahy has written about Virginia and national politics online since 2002, beginning with One Man's Trash (OMT), and continuing through Bacon's Rebellion (both the blog and the e-zine), Sic Semper Tyrannis, NBC12's Decision Virginia, Richmond.com and Tertium Quids. He is the chief blogger at "The Score" and a producer of "The Score" radio show as well as being a Washington Examiner contributor.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
18 Responses to "Appeals Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate"
This is actually helpful to the cause. If the 4th Circuit comes back striking down the individual mandate, you’ve got a circuit split and that almost guarantees the Supreme Court will take the case.
And the Supreme Court is on their Summer vacation as Obamacare continues to spread its tentacles through the US Healthcare system. At what point does Obamacare become irreversible and “too big to fail”?
Here’s another link to the decision by the court:
http://bearingdrift.com/2011/06/29/appeals-court-upholds-obamacare-individual-mandate/
Selectively quoting:
“In 1942, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the power to stop an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filbert, from growing his own wheat. The court said then that his decision to grow his own, rather than buying wheat on the national market, affected interstate commerce, which Congress has the authority to regulate.”
Skipping ahead a little bit:
“But the court said self-insuring affects interstate commerce, by shifting the costs of the un-insured to people who have insurance, just as the wheat farmer affected interstate commerce by growing and consuming his own wheat instead of buying it on the national market.”
Now, I have a great deal of respect for honoring precedence, however should such a lame precedent be cited to justify this particular law? Perhaps we need a new amendment to explain exactly to the courts what personal freedom means. What, I can’t grow tomatoes in my back yard because that means I am affecting interstate commerce by not buying them from Food Lion?
Ack, somehow I was all thumbs providing my link. Here is the correct one:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/29/6974889-appeals-court-upholds-obama-health-care-law-
LittleDavid, I’m with you on that. The precedent set by Wickard v. Filburn was a mistake in the first place, it was a highly contentious ruling by the Supreme Court back in the 1940′s that a lot of people disagree with to this day. To use that ruling as a precedent for expanding use of the Commerce Clause even further is plain silly, and you really have to bend and twist the Commerce Clause in absurd ways to justify the new health care law.
In terms of the Constitution there isn’t any grey area here, the Commerce Clause cannot be used in this way. That is so obvious that this isn’t going to be a case that expands our understanding of the Commerce Clause, this is going to be a case that makes it clear whether the Supreme Court can be trusted to uphold the Constitution or not. This law is a very clear case of government over-reach, and watching courts rule in favor of the new health care laws legitimacy says more about the credibility of the court than it does about the legitimacy of the law.
While I understand the urge to fight this blatant healthcare powergrab in the courts, it was quite predictable that Federal courts would find no big deal to Federal power grabs. As long as a pious hope is attached to the preamble, why then its perfectly understandable why Brontosaurus Govt must give you some tough love. It is interesting and perhaps even illuminating that Reagan era justices seem to be the only ones troubling themselves about the Constitution. Is the next step the Repubs saying that since it is Constitutional they can’t repeal it now??
To answer TimJ’s question, it is reassuring that Costa Rica is not that far away. When the US healthcare system relocates there I’m sure there will be plenty of cheap charter flights.
Brian S, I think the 3 democrats on the 4th circuit panel will uphold the mandate. I think the lack of a split will make it less likely the Supreme Court will take this up.
I agree with LD re Wickard. The holding is fairly absurd. We are also not headed towards victory in the 4th Circuit just as JJ suggests.
My analysis of why this ruling is not a disaster can be found here:
http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/06/sixth-circuit-sortof-upholds.html
But the 11th might strike down the law.
Wickard has been around far too long for the SCOTUS to overturn it. It would turn most commerce clause jurisprudence on its head.
I don’t think that’s the route they’ll take.
Well heck, all our problems are solved then. Congress can cure the housing crisis by forcing renters to buy a house.
… and cure homelessness too!
And cure world hunger by passing a UN resolution requiring everyone in the world to buy food …
Who is foolish enough, or cowardly enough, to believe the federal government can be a fair arbiter of its own power? What is the matter with people?
Patrick Henry, arguing correctly against Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution:
Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.
…but suspicions have gone forth — suspicions of my integrity — publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country? I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country. I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger. But, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless. But, sir, suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: should it fall on me, I am contented: conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust there are many who think my professions for the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides. There are many on the other side, who possibly may have been persuaded to the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_04.htm#henry-01
I remember reading Federal hate crimes legislation a few years back, and the basis of Federal jurisdiction in that area was interstate commerce. Apparently,if someone is afraid of getting beat up, they might not buy something across state lines. Matters like this are not truly regulating interstate commerce.
I wonder what Obama thinks as he sees this issue battled out on the merits of the individual mandate. Because, during the 2008 campaign, Clinton and Edwards both attacked Obama’s health care plan because of the LACK of an individual mandate, if I recall correctly. I guess that’s what happens when you leave legislating to the legislators without some firm direction from the administration.
I support the individual mandate for a number of reasons. First, I want the people around me to have adequate health care so they don’t make me or my family and friends sick. Second, I think health care in a modern society is a human right. Third, on a more pragmatic level, unless we as a society are willing to deny health care unless a person can pay, we are paying that cost already. For all these reasons, I support the President’s plan as passed by Congress.
The fourth arguement for the individual mandate — which I’m not particularly crazy about, since I think it’s a huge giveaway to the insurance industry and we’d be better off with single payer — is that without it the insurance companies will not get on board with other proposed reforms, like being required to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
Steve Vaughn,
I’m in agreement with you. I myself am in favor of limited socialized medicine because I think that would solve the problems. What medical procedures would be covered would have to be limited to keep it affordable.
I understand the rationalization for the individual mandate, I just do not support the infringement on personal liberties.
Also, note that in the justification(s) given for the ruling, which includes the Wickard v Filburn ruling, no-one was forced to purchase anything. The ruling was that Filburn could not grow wheat for his personal consumption, but Filburn was not then forced to purchase wheat from the market if he declined to consume wheat. The other case cited is Gonzales v. Raich which held that the federal Controlled Substances Act could be applied to prohibit the local cultivation and possession of marijuana authorized under California law. Nothing in there that citizens could be forced to purchase and consume marijuana either.
Leave your response