-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A federal judge has ruled that it is constitutional to force individuals to purchase health insurance, a central pillar of ObamaCare. To be clear, the decision was in response to a suit brought by the Thomas More Law Center, which is separate from the two larger suits brought by dozens of states.
U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, a Bill Clinton appointee, argued that the federal government does indeed have the power under the Commerce Clause to impose the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.
Citing the Roosevelt-era case that extended the Commerce Clause to regulate a farmer growing wheat for his home consumption, as well as the more recent ruling against home-grown medical marijuana, Steeh argued that all the government needs to do is prove that it has a rational basis to conclude that taken in aggregate, the regulated activity affects commerce. He ruled that in this case, "the costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision."
Even though ObamaCare is a novel application of the Commerce Clause because it regulates the act of not engaging in economic activity, the judge concluded that in reality the Commerce Clause power extends to all economic decisions that affect commerce. He also argued that a person can not garuntee that he or she will opt out of the health care market.
In addition, the judge ruled that the individual mandate is essential to a "broader regulatory scheme" because it's connected to the regulation forcing insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions.
While this decision will likely generate a lot of discussion because it's the first ruling on the merits of the constitutional challenges to ObamaCare, opponents of the law may have a lot better chance of prevailing in the two other major suits, one brought by Virginia and the other one led by Florida and involving 20 states.
View all comments (52) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/07/clinton-appointee-rules-obamac
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Progressive Derangements
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Facing Up to Darwin
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
ADVERTISEMENT
Nice While it Lasted| 10.7.10 @ 8:34PM
The judge does not realize it but he has just officially declared the end of the Republic.
The Founders knew this day would come which is why we have the 2nd amendment. Either this decision is reversed or it is civil war.
Mark| 10.7.10 @ 10:13PM
Please. This will be appealed (it already has been). If it makes it to the SCOTUS, do you really think 5 justices will uphold that decision? 4 are conservative locks, and Kennedy has tacked right big time since Obama. Kennedy has basically said he's not retiring until after Obama is gone to ensure a liberal does not replace him on the court.
SGT Dan| 10.8.10 @ 2:17AM
Mark, ask why we find ourselves in a position where something this stupid is even a matter for the Federal judiciary? If Congress had taken their individual oaths of office seriously for the last hundred years, we wouldn't need to pin our hopes on nine people in black robes to save what few Constitutional rights we have left.
Dixie Pixie| 10.8.10 @ 11:12AM
Greetings Nice
A even better question is those people who gave their oath “to defend the constitution against all enemies” understand that requires a suppression of liberty and freedoms on the whims of Congress and the Courts.
When I willing gave my oath, I assumed it was to defend the traditional American freedoms.
I certainly did not give a solemn oath to defend the profit margins of a Congressionally favored corporation.
DRed| 10.7.10 @ 8:38PM
A bit off topic, but why is an organization dedicated to the preservation of religious freedom and the sanctity of human life named after a man who burned heretics?
MightyMighty| 10.7.10 @ 11:52PM
Thomas More gave his life rather than forfeit his religious freedom.
As for him being a man who burned heretics, this is a gross distortion of what he was. He was the English Chancellor, in charge of enforcing laws. While he was judge, only four men were put to the ultimate penalty, because More worked so hard to convert them rather than have them die. While he agreed with the laws on heresy in principle, he strove very hard to prevent there being any use for them.
I personally would find it difficult to judge someone who so courageously laid down his life for his beliefs.
DRed| 10.8.10 @ 12:31AM
He was obviously a very brave man, and very strong in his faith, and it's true he was no Torquemada. He did die rather than compromise his own religious beliefs.
But he was hardly a defender of the religious freedom of others, was he? (I mean, even it was only four, he still did have them tied to a stake and burned to dead for their beliefs) He's a difficult man to judge, especially at such a far remove, but I still think he's an odd choice for an organization like the TMLC.
D330| 10.7.10 @ 8:40PM
I know, I'm being simplistic, but these people have no difficulty in manipulating the language into whatever form is necessary for it to conform to their preconceived notions of the way the world should be. I know, runon sentence. An abuse of the language, no?
Jones| 10.7.10 @ 8:48PM
I refuse
come and get me, coppers
Paula| 10.7.10 @ 8:53PM
I am sick to my stomach. As Nice stated, this is the end of the Republic as we know it. Unless the Supreme Court knocks this down, we will have no way of getting out from under the thumb of government.
Patriot| 10.7.10 @ 9:30PM
Do you want to make a bet, Paula? We are the only ones who can get ourselves out from under the thumb of government.
"People get the government they deserve." Thomas Jefferson
We are still a free people; no one can MAKE us do anything we don't want to do.
Whitehall| 10.8.10 @ 1:19PM
Unfortunately, this judge is following precedent. The last opportunity to rein in the Commerce Clause was the California medical marijuana case. Even though the California law was carefully crafted to NOT involve interstate commerce, even Judge Scalia upheld the prevailing intepretation from the New Deal.
It was the most disappointing vote and opinion I've seen from Scalia. He has been accused of letting the content of the case dictate his view of the law and I think this is one example.
He'll have another chance to overturn that New Deal case and put the Commerce Clause on the same basis as the Founders conceived it.
Patriot| 10.9.10 @ 1:32AM
If we let the Marxist thugs force ObamaCare on us, we deserve what we get.
Rich K| 10.7.10 @ 8:54PM
Tick Tick Tick,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rick| 10.7.10 @ 9:23PM
Abortion is an economic activity (money changes hands). So the federal government can force a woman to have an abortion?
Rick| 10.7.10 @ 9:23PM
Abortion is an economic activity (money changes hands). So the federal government can force a woman to have an abortion?
Michael| 10.7.10 @ 9:30PM
Yes, of course this also means that the federal government can tell you that you're not allowed to have a child (or to issue licenses allowing a woman to have a baby).
JoeInMD| 10.7.10 @ 9:52PM
According to the reasoning, this means the government can force us to buy any and everything. Not merely what purchasing options are available, but whether the choice to keep our money is available. What a terrible precedent this sets.
Gerry| 10.7.10 @ 9:31PM
Not having an abortion is also an economic activity. Less future workers available to fund future payments from Social Security for the aging population. So the federal government could force a woman to not have an abortion?
MightyMighty| 10.7.10 @ 11:53PM
This language is inaccurate. The government wouldn't "force a woman" not to have an abortion. The government would protect human beings from being killed by their mothers.
This is like saying, "the government forces childcare workers to not molest their charges." No, the govt. attempts to protect children from pedophiles.
Robert| 10.7.10 @ 10:00PM
So the udge ruled that if a man so much as breathes the government can dictate to him whatever arbitrary nonsense the government wants him to perform?
Does anyone besides me think that is a drastic overreach of Federal authority?
Does anyone else think that now is the time to start investing in tar, feathers, guns and butter?
Ashen| 10.7.10 @ 10:05PM
Could you please explain the last paragraph? Thx.
Steve S| 10.7.10 @ 10:06PM
He cited a precedent. A farmer was prevented from growing wheat for his own consumption because that would mess up the national quotas. It happened in the past, and this is as deep as that idiot can think. What a wonderful example of his profession!
JM| 10.7.10 @ 11:02PM
It was more than that. The man had grown wheat for HIS OWN CONSUMPTION and had no intent of SELLING IT (neither interstate nor intrastate). It was a heinous decision during the Roosevelt Admin that is being used as a precedent for an equally heinous opinion.
Doug| 10.7.10 @ 11:23PM
You and your cheap ass junk can suck my balls.
Carol| 10.7.10 @ 10:25PM
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/N.....485866.pdf
The judge is lying for pretending that it's merely necessary to claim that something has economic ramifications in order to be justified under the Commerce Clause. He lied by omission in the Filburn case, by leaving out the key fact that Filburn was in fact a farmer engaged in interstate commerce, who had chosen to participate in the commodity program, and the wheat in question was in addition to his allotment. His invoking of the Raich decision is ludicrous, like pretending that the government has the right to regulate people for NOT wanting to grow or buy marijuana!!!
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.....titutional
His claim that the uninsured are a burden to the insured which would magically disappear if they're forced to buy health insurance is a filthy Big Lie! The cost of insurance is even higher than the health costs they can't pay for!
"People uninsured for any part of 2008 spend about $30 billion out of pocket and receive approximately $56 billion in uncompensated care while uninsured. Government programs finance about 75 percent of uncompensated care. If all uninsured people were fully covered, their medical spending would increase by $122.6 billion. The increase represents 5 percent of current national health spending and 0.8 percent of gross domestic product." (Covering The Uninsured In 2008: Current Costs, Sources Of Payment, And Incremental Costs of Expanding Coverage. J Hadley, J Holahan, T Coughlin, D Miller. Health Affairs 2008;27(5):w399-w415.) Page 56, "Even if all private funding for uncompensated care were recouped from private insurance payments, this would still amount to only 1.7% of private insurance premiums." (Covering the Uninsured in 2008: A Detailed Examination of Current Costs and Sources of Payment, and Incremental Costs of Expanding Coverage. J Hadley, J Holahan, T Coughlin, D Miller. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Aug. 2008.) Also in this report, it says that full-year uninsured people on average received $1,686 in health care, compared with $3,915 for insured people, and paid for a larger proportion of it out of their own pockets, page 15. The Obama plan is to force them to buy health insurance, with an average subsidy of $6,000, for those average expenses of less than $2,000! (Reid Letter, Mar. 18, 2010.) WHAT A BARGAIN - FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7809.pdf
Meanwhile, those with health insurance have inflicted a burden of $246 billion in lost federal tax revenues due to the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income. This exclusion is the nation's COSTLIEST tax subsidy, and the expense of making up for these lost revenues is distributed across everyone, including the uninsured (Van de Water, 2009).
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2832
And, most importantly, the Supreme Court has invalidated congressional action on the ground that it employed unconstitutional means to an end that it could have constitutionally accomplished in another manner. Congress could have funded health care for those who can't pay simply by expanding existing programs. But they refused to do so, because the REAL goal of forcing people to buy health insurance is to force everyone to submit the "wellness and prevention" charlatanism, which every "approved" plan is required to include. Their ideology of "wellness" is based on deliberate, systematic scientific fraud and deceit, with no scientific criticism allowed, and is really nothing but shoving an official establishment of religion down our collective throats! So it's actually an unconstitutional means to an unconstitutional end as well!
Oh Me| 10.7.10 @ 11:24PM
Wish the court would equally apply the commerce clause equally with nations and states.
Meaning of regulating commerce: http://federalistblog.us/2006/....._myth.html
Yosemeti Sam| 10.8.10 @ 1:13AM
Why has the Judiciary become a - fish market?
Vinny| 10.8.10 @ 1:37AM
They just locked a bigger win in Nov for the republicans. This is another shining example of liberalism at work.
Graig Yarbrough| 10.8.10 @ 2:22AM
Can any entity on earth (or anywhere in the solar system for that matter), force you to contract?
Contract:
an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified
If there is no agreement, there is no contract. IF you force me, you destroy the meaning of contract.
wise| 10.8.10 @ 5:21AM
public finance programs for about 75 percent of uncompensated care. If all uninsured people were fully covered, their medicalpanasonic dmc-tz5 charger costs would increase by $ 122 600 000 000. The increase represents 5 percent of current national health spending and 0.8 percent of gross domestic product. "
c| 10.8.10 @ 9:44AM
if you leave decisions such as these to the courts you will always be dissapointed. judges, whether liberal or conservative, will reason that congress can pass any law it wants, unless, of course, it deals with politically sacrosant issues such as restricting abortion.
you cannot rely on the courts. you have to elect the "right" people to congress. you can't sit at home, as in 2008, and complain about McCain thus allowing obama to win. if you elect people like obama you will get laws like obamacare.
anarchopro| 10.8.10 @ 9:24PM
I'm afraid history has proven that this will happen with any politician. Elected or not. I know what you meant by "the 'right' people" but the correct politicians for most people just means forcing people to do the things you agree with the wrong politicians force you to do things you don't agree with. Force is force is force. You'll never elect your way to more freedom.
Dixie Pixie| 10.8.10 @ 10:50AM
Let me get this straight. Congress has the new found ability to require a person to buy a product or service just because the refusal to buy the product or service affects interstate commerce????
What is to stop a company with a hotshot congressional lobbyist from requiring that the populace buy its products under penalty of law.
For a company, this is sales heaven. This will certainly result in massive executive bonuses from the mandatory buying of products. Of course Congress will expect “campaign contributions” as a result its granting the blessing of mandatory sales allocation.
One of the fundamental principals of liberty is the right to choose. The ability to determine how to spend ones own money is the difference between freedom and corporate slavery.
The bottom line is the courts are outlawing freedom in imagery deference to the “Commerce Clause”.
Cliff| 10.8.10 @ 10:56AM
What do you call the person who finishes last in medical school? You call them "Doctor". What do you call the person who finishes last in law school? You call them "Judge".
How can a reasonable person, let alone judge, believe that the founding fathers wanted a government that could control every decision of your life? It is simply absurd. I do hate lawyers. Start with a conclusion, then build a case around it.
Mike Robinson| 12.14.10 @ 10:30AM
So you hate lawyers. What do you need to become and be a nation of laws? Your implication that judges come from the bottom of law school classes has no basis in fact. That would mean Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, et al are all also rans when it comes to class rank.
Please submit name one person ; judge , elected official, college prof. or other, who advocates a government that could control every decision of your life. Of course there are such circumstances where this is appropriate ---people involved are called prisoners.
George S| 10.8.10 @ 11:09AM
The time to make logical constitutional argments is over. The next step is for state governors to declare that the National Guard units under their command will protect all state residents from IRS Agents with respect to ObamaCare.
We cannot give the keys to the Republic to a liberal who is employed as a judge.
Mike Robinson| 12.14.10 @ 10:22AM
Are you serious?
Please get a grip. You are advocating some seriously dangerous ideas with a small percentage of citizens that would agree with you.
As to the new health care law. I was impressed and convinced that it needed to be done when I heard Bob Doyle, former Senator from Kansas and no liberal, say he hope Obama got something through as the Senate had been working on it since 1948. That is a long time for a recognized problem to go unaddressed.
Ertdfg| 10.8.10 @ 11:33AM
Awesome, this will make the next GM bailout much easier to manage. All households with an income over $50,000 are required by law to purchase a new GM vehicle... sales slump resolved.
How many businesses will now have a model of being a "protected" business who the government will "bail out" by forcing citizens to purchase their goods and services? Looks like a good business model to me; you don't even need a product that anyone wants, will use, or provides value... just some government officials in your pockets. Quality is for suckers, buy some Congressmen.
Dixie Pixie| 10.8.10 @ 12:28PM
And what happens when every company with a sales problem jump onto this Congressional program.
What happens when Congress demands you buy $160,000.00 dollars of goods and services on a $40,000.00 salary or have that sum confiscated by the IRS.
CalMark| 10.8.10 @ 5:36PM
This didn't happen in a vacuum.
The people don't want this monstrous law. The more obvious it becomes what this law is about, the fewer people support it.
The days of the "ruling class" are numbered. They are ruling, not governing, and against the will of the people. In a country like this, with traditions like ours, the people will not stand for it.
Just as in the Civil War, people are taking sides. While there is reason for hope, it remains to be seen whether the Republic will survive.
anarchopro| 10.8.10 @ 9:36PM
My friend, I consider the Republic dead. I just hope, when the time comes, who caused it. I don't want to see a civil war between citizens. Be they left or right aligned. I hope we can let the government colapse peacefully and let the regular people go their separate ways. We don't have to cling to this failed civic model. We can split up and work together as separate entities after things settle down.
anarchopro| 10.8.10 @ 9:39PM
Correction: I hope, when the time comes, people understand who caused it.
Oldbull| 10.9.10 @ 2:48AM
Self health, you make no sense. Please re-think and resubmit.
Mike Robinson| 12.14.10 @ 9:59AM
I believe the argument is that it is impossible to be out of the "health care" system even if you pay cash for your services. The Government is the ultimate insurer as no one is denied medical care albeit via the emergency room. Of course we are #1 in the delivery of emergency services in the world, the most expensive aspect. Yet lag far behind other advanced countries in many other measures of medical services delivery.
Maybe we don't have to be at the top in the infant mortality rate.