Here’s the great news of the day: ObamaCare is unconstitutional, which is to say it violates the Constitution of the United States, which is to say it is un-American.
I pointed out – and documented at length – some time back that Democrats couldn’t care less about the Constitution of the United States of America.
And the “Constitutional scholar” president is at the head of the list of Democrats who have been using the Constitution like toilet paper.
Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement
By Greg Bluestein
Associated Press / August 12, 2011ATLANTA (AP) – A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn’t go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.
The states and other critics argued the law violates people’s rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a “quintessential” power.
The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that “the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power.”
“What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” the opinion said.
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.
The 11th Circuit isn’t the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government’s new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.
But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ coverage.
The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson’s ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that “would imperil individual liberty, render Congress’s other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states.”
The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its “quintessential” rights when it adopted the new law.
During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The arguments unfolded in what’s considered one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.
Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he’s been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter’s outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.
Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami’s lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.
Obama lied, health care died.
I also just this morning wrote about the pathological dishonesty of Barack Obama with his health care takeover, having no idea whatsoever that view was about to be further confirmed today.
Here’s yet another major demonstration of Barack Obama’s personal and professional dishonesty:
ObamaCare’s Mandate Is Not A Tax, Except When It Is
By David Hogberg
Thu., June 17, 2010 2:06 PM ETThe Obama administration has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit from 20 states opposing ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which requires almost all Americans to purchase health insurance.
According to Obama’s Justice Department, the individual mandate is constitutional because “requiring individuals to buy health insurance is an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority.” (The National Federation of Independent Businesses has more here.)
President Obama insisted repeatedly during the health care debate that the individual mandate is “absolutely” not a tax increase.
More broadly, the administration’s legal position could create a big political problem. Back on Sept. 12, 2008, Obama said:
I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
On multiple occasions Obama promised, “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”
Some argue that Obama already violated that pledge when he signed the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan bill that boosted cigarette taxes. And that may, indeed, be the case.
But the individual mandate “tax” hits almost everyone and gives people no choice.
If the administration continues with its legal position, Obama is admitting he’s violated his tax pledge, giving political fodder to Republicans. But if he stops the DOJ, that weakens the case for an individual mandate, a critical part of ObamaCare.
Maintaining a campaign pledge vs. ramming through the transformation of American society? That’s a no-brainer for this president.
An update to that article: it’s not “20 states” any more. At least 38 states have tried to protect themselves from the ravages of this anti-American takeover of the health care system.
What did Obama say in what turns out to have been his “read my lips” moment re: ObamaCare?
(AP) President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.
[…]
He told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he will keep his pledge not to raise taxes on families earning up to $250,000, and that much of the final bill – hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years – can be achieved from savings within the current system. Coming up with the rest remains a key legislative obstacle.
And now there is no question that if ObamaCare ISN’T A TAX – which would make Barack Obama a documented liar when he publicly said it wasn’t – that it is a clearly unconstitutional takeover.
Obama didn’t just lie about this central element of his ObamaCare. He’s lied over and over and over again. And even Obama’s own fellow DEMOCRATS have recognized that Obama has lied about ObamaCare.
Either way, the man stinking up the Oval Office is the most dishonest and profoundly anti-American president in this once great nation’s entire history.
Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola – whose previous ruling that ObamaCare was inherently unconstitutional was cited and reaffirmed today – explained why ObamaCare was unconstitutional and un-American in terms such as these:
Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.
Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”
By the way, DEMOCRATS as a species are now documented liars. Here’s now DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz just telling flat-out LIES about ObamaCare. If Democrats want to have any integrity whatsoever, they could start by throwing out this nasty demagogue liar.