Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional

Obamacare mandate ruled unconstitutional

In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law?s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law?s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.

The judge wrote that his survey of case law ?yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person?s decision not to purchase a product, not withstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html

Interesting development. Looks like the presumptions that it would hold up in court may have been a little premature.

No big surprise...Looks like it'll end up being a SCOTUS issue.

From CNN "Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional"

Won't that be an interesting ruling.

Eric Cantor is asking that the Supreme Court take up the issue immediately to expedite the process.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) :: Republican Whip

?Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing or nutritional decisions,? Hudson wrote. ?This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by previous legal cases around the Commerce Clause of the Constitution."

A nail in the heart of the progressive agenda.

Just FYI,

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform. You don't say!

Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm

He just addressed the section requiring insurance or paying a fine. The health care bill is still constitutional, it is just that provision that is in dispute - and since it doesn't go into effect until 2014 there is plenty of time to sort it out.

He just addressed the section requiring insurance or paying a fine. The health care bill is still constitutional, it is just that provision that is in dispute - and since it doesn't go into effect until 2014 there is plenty of time to sort it out.

One of the most contentious issues, a clear over reach. The judge did signal this wasn't a case where the entire law would get nullified. It'll be interesting to see how the SC rules on this when it gets there. (If it gets there, it could get modified or repealed before it does.)

I'm still wondering from Glenda's thread how we'll pay for this. I've been doing more research, the costs for the state are quite large.

If we need to generate an additional 3-4 billion in tax revenue to pay for this, what taxes would people be willing to take a hit on? Lots of options - sin taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, higher fees?

Funny how the conservatives love an "activist judge" when he rules in their favor. Of course in this case it turns out he has a vested interest in repealing the law and his ruling isn't based on a sense of fairness.

Funny how the conservatives love an "activist judge" when he rules in their favor. Of course in this case it turns out he has a vested interest in repealing the law and his ruling isn't based on a sense of fairness.

I don't agree with you that this ruling is activist. But on the subject, there are 'good' and 'bad' activist judges. A 'good' activist judge restores original intent by overturning bad precedent.

Funny how the conservatives love an "activist judge" when he rules in their favor. Of course in this case it turns out he has a vested interest in repealing the law and his ruling isn't based on a sense of fairness.

This is not an activist judge this is a strict constructionist judge. The former is bad the latter is good.

I don't quite understand why you think we pay for it in one scenario, but not in another. :idontno:

No matter what, we still foot the bill in some way.

I hope it goes to the Supreme Court, so Americans can, once again, can see how politically bi-partisan the SCOTUS really is (remember Bush V. Gore). Forget Liberal vs Conservative and the Constitution, they play too much partisan politics.

I hope it goes to the Supreme Court, so Americans can, once again, can see how politically bi-partisan the SCOTUS really is (remember Bush V. Gore). Forget Liberal vs Conservative and the Constitution, they play too much partisan politics.

makes no sense...

makes no sense...

Some people would disagree.

.
It makes no sense to John Oliver...:floor:
John Oliver believes that the Tea Party protests against health care reform are America's very own Velvet Revolution.
.
Health-Con1 - The Mediscarening - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 03/17/10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


.

If we need to generate an additional 3-4 billion in tax revenue to pay for this, what taxes would people be willing to take a hit on? Lots of options - sin taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes, higher fees?

Who says we have to pay for it? Well, I guess it is written somewhere that the USA has to pay for its debt, but seriously, the federal government doesn't seem to be paying for anything else its doing. When is the last time we saw a balanced budget? If we cannot balance the budget, how the heck are we supposed to pay the interest on the debt, much less the debt itself? Just charge it to the grandchildren.

The ball will stop rolling one day, but until it does, lets just charge everything to the federal government.:sarc:

Job security for lawyers and lobbyists for years to come

Maybe those who can't handle their own debts shouldn't be commenting on the governments?

Who says we have to pay for it? Well, I guess it is written somewhere that the USA has to pay for its debt, but seriously, the federal government doesn't seem to be paying for anything else its doing. When is the last time we saw a balanced budget? If we cannot balance the budget, how the heck are we supposed to pay the interest on the debt, much less the debt itself? Just charge it to the grandchildren.

The ball will stop rolling one day, but until it does, lets just charge everything to the federal government.:sarc:

Well, the federal government may be totally fubar'd, but we here in Florida have this funny thing called a balanced budget amendment... we have to pay for the major increase in spending Obamacare is forcing on our state.

It's interesting, I've asked numerous times in multiple threads looking for some suggestions from the liberals on how we'll pay for this at the state level. So far nobody has stepped up with any suggestions. Me thinks we have an unfunded mandate on our hands.