Judge Tosses Challenge to Obama Healthcare Law

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

Judge tosses challenge to Obama healthcare law
Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:01pm EST

By Jeremy Pelofsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge in Virginia on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the landmark healthcare law championed by President Barack Obama, upholding key provisions that require health insurance coverage.

The challenge, one of several attempting to strike down the law, was brought by the conservative Christian Liberty University and individuals who said the law would violate several parts of the U.S. Constitution.

However, U.S. District Judge Norman Moon ruled that the law requiring individuals to buy health insurance coverage as well as requiring employers to buy coverage for their employees was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Moon found that without the coverage requirements in the law, the cost of health insurance would increase because the number of insured individuals would decline, "precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act's regulatory measures."

Read more: http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B000920101201?ca=rdt

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Take that, you Nattering Republicon Nabobs of Negavity." - Citizens of the USA

And don't start whining about your FAIL, like you usually do. Suck it up and try acting like you give a shit about the American people.

[Drale]

2. Good News

[Lisa D]

3. Thanks Hissyspit!

It's nice to see sanity prevail.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. While the result is a good thing, hanging it on the Commerce Clause was not

The Commerce Clause is being used for just about everything the Feds want to push to the states these days. Sooner or later it will be stretched too far (if it has not already) and then there will be a court precedent against it.

[pezDispenser]

5. agreed

I'm certainly no Constitutional scholar, but that Commerce Clause seems to be one big catch all.

[The Hitman]

9. It pretty much has been since 1937

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

I could go on all day with this; but you're right, 99% of laws enacted by congress these days (figuratively speaking) are done through commerce power.

[pnorman]

13. In the latter half of the 20th century,

the Populists were getting much needed "social legislation" passed in various States, mainly western. This included children & women protection, safe working conditions and wages & hours, regulation of railroads, trusts & cartels, and many others of the like. But under the doctrine of what we now refer to as`"Corporate Personhood", they were all deemed in violation of the "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment. The irony is that that Amendment was cited so many times in behalf of Corporations. But when that ("Corporation-friendly") Supreme Court finally got around to those in whose behalf that Amendment was framed, it was with "Plessy v Ferguson"!!!

Invoking of that "Commerce Clause", may seem too broad brush and/or "vague", but it was probably the ONLY workable approach. And it has lasted to this day!

[pnorman]

16. Too late to edit, but I meant "19th Century" in the subject line of my above posting!

n/t

[happyslug]

14. Between the Commerce Clause and the rest of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution

Article 1, Section 8 lists the power of Congress. The Only additional power granted to Congress since 1787 was the ability to enforce Civil Rights under the Post Civil War Amendments to the US consitution.

Article 1, Section 8 reads as follows:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

[Recursion]

11. That's already happened; VAWA was a commerce clause law

that got overturned.

[savalez]

6. Right on!

Wondering. Why are "Christian" organizations so anti people?

[groundloop]

7. Not all Christian organizations, only the faux right wing ones

There were plenty of faith based organizations gathering signatures and fighting for the healthcare bill (and even fighting for single payer / universal coverage).

[nyy1998]

8. Since this one will be appealed, how many of these dumbass lawsuits against the heath care reform

bill is out there?

[ixion]

10. The Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act is lives on, hurray!

:puke:

[underpants]

12. That headline had nothing to do with the story

I know that you have to post the headline
this is aside from that.

Reuters wrote a headline that had nothing to do what Mr.Moon said.

From the article:
Judge Moon characterized the fines as "penalties" rather than a tax, noting that they are not designed to raise revenue but merely to "enforce the requirement that individuals and employers purchase or provide health insurance."

Further, opponents of the law have argued that it illegally permits federal funding for abortion but Moon said "they fail to allege how any payments required under the Act, whether fines, fees, taxes, or the cost of the policy, would be used to fund abortion."

[happyslug]

15. Here is the Actual Opinion, if anyone wants to read it, Please note it is a PDF file

http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/MOON/LIBERTYUNIVERSITYVGEITHNER.PDF

I was confused about the argument between "Penalties" and "Taxes" used in the News Article, but when I read the actual case, it became clear that the Judge's ruling that the "Penalties" were not "Taxes" had to do with the Anti-injunction Act of the Internal Revenue Code and was a "Win" by the Plaintiffs. The Anti-Injunction Act states a Court can NOT issue an injunction or other Court Order forbidding the Collection of any tax, if the dispute is about how much tax is owned. The Proper procedure is to pay the tax and then sue for a refund. The Judge ruled that the the Anti injunction Act did NOT apply to the Penalties in this act for it was clearly a Penalty not a Tax and the act only applies to what Congress called Taxes in the Internal Revenue Code. Thus the ruling that the fee was NOT a "Tax" was a win for the Plaintiffs, the court could enter an injunction if the Court later found that the Penalties were unconstitutional.

The problem was the Court then ruled the Act Constitutional and denied any injunction on the grounds the Act was Constitutional. Thus the "Win" that the "Penalties" in the Act were NOT "Taxes" did not come into play.