|
|
|
A Virginia federal judge ruled against a key provision of President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care reform law on Monday, presaging a larger battle on the law’s constitutionality.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. The individual mandate requires individuals to acquire insurance by 2014 or pay an individual penalty of $95, or 1 percent of income - whichever is greater. The penalty would rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income by 2016. The law allows exemptions in the case of financial hardships or religious belief.
“No specifically articulated constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance,” Hudson wrote in his 42-page decision. “Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds. Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers.”
The suit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, based its argument in the belief that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to require citizens to purchase a commercial product. Virginia state law specifically prohibits a requirement for citizens to purchase insurance.
The White House is already downplaying the significance of Hudson’s ruling.
“We disagree with the ruling issued today in Virginia and the Department of Justice is considering its appeal options,” stated Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President for Special Projects in a White House blog post, adding that this is one of 20 recent filings against the law in the past few months, 12 of which have been dismissed.
“History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws -- including the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act - were all filed and all failed,” Cutter went on to state. “Contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.”
Cutter concluded with, “There have been many rulings on court cases regarding health reform and we know there will be many more. In the end, the Affordable Care Act will prevail and the American people will enjoy the benefits of reform.”
Kansas Attorney General-elect Derek Schmidt cheered the decision.
“Today's decision in Virginia is a victory for the rule of law and for the notion that our Constitution creates a federal government of limited powers. While this is but one of many legal decisions expected before this dispute is settled, it's good news that this round goes to the states,” Schmidt said.
Already, groups supporting and opposing the law are commenting on the decision.
“Congress showed blatant disregard for the Constitution, and that’s the pivotal issue here,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. ADF is a legal alliance founded in 1993 by more than 30 Christian leaders.
“Judge Hudson’s ruling is no more important than decisions by 14 other federal district judges of equal rank who have determined that the law is constitutional or have dismissed complaints on procedural grounds, and the ultimate decision will rest with the U.S. Supreme Court,” stated a press release from Health Care for America Now, which supports the law. “We are confident that the (law) ultimately will be ruled constitutional, that implementation will continue to move forward at a swift pace and that the law will fulfill its promise of providing quality, affordable coverage and health security to all Americans.”
Already, 20 states have banded together to challenge this portion of the law. Schmidt has indicated that he intends for Kansas to join that effort. All sides believe that, ultimately, it is an issue that will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, which is historically unwilling to issue rulings until lower courts have issued judgments.
A Virginia federal judge ruled against a key provision of President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care reform law on Monday, presaging a larger battle on the law’s constitutionality.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. The individual mandate requires individuals to acquire insurance by 2014 or pay an individual penalty of $95, or 1 percent of income - whichever is greater. The penalty would rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income by 2016. The law allows exemptions in the case of financial hardships or religious belief.
“No specifically articulated constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance,” Hudson wrote in his 42-page decision. “Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds. Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers.”
The suit, brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, based its argument in the belief that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to require citizens to purchase a commercial product. Virginia state law specifically prohibits a requirement for citizens to purchase insurance.
The White House is already downplaying the significance of Hudson’s ruling.
“We disagree with the ruling issued today in Virginia and the Department of Justice is considering its appeal options,” stated Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President for Special Projects in a White House blog post, adding that this is one of 20 recent filings against the law in the past few months, 12 of which have been dismissed.
“History and the facts are on our side. Similar legal challenges to major new laws -- including the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act - were all filed and all failed,” Cutter went on to state. “Contrary to what opponents argue the new law falls well within Congress’s power to regulate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.”
Cutter concluded with, “There have been many rulings on court cases regarding health reform and we know there will be many more. In the end, the Affordable Care Act will prevail and the American people will enjoy the benefits of reform.”
Kansas Attorney General-elect Derek Schmidt cheered the decision.
“Today's decision in Virginia is a victory for the rule of law and for the notion that our Constitution creates a federal government of limited powers. While this is but one of many legal decisions expected before this dispute is settled, it's good news that this round goes to the states,” Schmidt said.
Already, groups supporting and opposing the law are commenting on the decision.
“Congress showed blatant disregard for the Constitution, and that’s the pivotal issue here,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. ADF is a legal alliance founded in 1993 by more than 30 Christian leaders.
“Judge Hudson’s ruling is no more important than decisions by 14 other federal district judges of equal rank who have determined that the law is constitutional or have dismissed complaints on procedural grounds, and the ultimate decision will rest with the U.S. Supreme Court,” stated a press release from Health Care for America Now, which supports the law. “We are confident that the (law) ultimately will be ruled constitutional, that implementation will continue to move forward at a swift pace and that the law will fulfill its promise of providing quality, affordable coverage and health security to all Americans.”
Already, 20 states have banded together to challenge this portion of the law. Schmidt has indicated that he intends for Kansas to join that effort. All sides believe that, ultimately, it is an issue that will have to be decided by the Supreme Court, which is historically unwilling to issue rulings until lower courts have issued judgments.
