US healthcare law: Judge rules against key provision

[frigidmagi]

bbc

A federal judge in the US state of Virginia has ruled against a key part of the Obama administration's law on healthcare reform.

The decision by US District Judge Henry Hudson is the first finding against the law passed in March.

He backed the state of Virginia's argument that the law's requirement that Americans purchase healthcare or face a fine was unconstitutional.

Other lawsuits are pending, but the US Supreme Court will have the final word.

The judge wrote in a 42-page decision that the disputed provision was "neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution".

But he declined to invalidate the entire law, in what correspondents say was a small victory for Barack Obama.

'Critical milestone'
The decision has been welcomed by Virginia Attorney General, Kenneth Cuccinelli, who filed the lawsuit.

"This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution," he said in a statement after the ruling.

The US Justice Department expressed disappointment, but said it continued to believe the law was constitutional.

"There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail," said a Justice Department spokeswoman.

The law on healthcare reform is seen by some as one of Mr Obama's biggest achievements during his first two years in office, but it continues to divide public opinion.

It aims to extend health insurance to millions of Americans who lack it - partly by requiring the mostly young, healthy Americans who currently forgo insurance to purchase it.

Two judges have rejected other challenges to the law, including one in Virginia last month.

I wonder what part of the Constitution he cited.

[SirNitram]

The same one violated by George Washington when he ordered everyone to buy certain provisions. One that exists solely in the heads of nutjobs.

[Derek Thunder]

It's the same amendment that changed the national anthem to Alan Jackson's "Chattahoochee" and established a 50-dollar "small caliber" tax for all personal firearms under .357 as well as a requirement for hover-round scooters to have gun racks.

[frigidmagi]

Actually... No.

The Healthcare bill was justified using the usual excuse, regulating interstate commerce. I say usual excuse because that's the reasoning Congress has had for the vast majority of it's bill for the last 50 to 40 years. Hell it was cited as a justification for the various civil rights acts of the 1960s.

The commonwealth of virginia has argued that requiring a citizen to buy healthcare insurance is not covered by this but a new power that Congress is reaching for. In effect they are arguing that if someone chose not to buy health insurance they are choosing not to part take in said commerce and it is not a power granted to Congress to force them to do so.

In short compelling an involuntary act of interstate commerce is not the same as regulating a voluntary act.

I would think Wickward vs Filburn would cover this however...

A wrinkle no one is thinking about. Many states required you to have auto insurance. If requring health insurance is unconstitutional, wouldn't requiring auto insurance be as well? What about requirements on businesses to carry certain types of insurance?

[SirNitram]

I can't take it that seriously, Frigid. 14 judges dismissed it out of hand, 2 ruled the other way, and this guy is heavily invested in a GOP group that promoted the 'unconstitutional' angle. Link

[frigidmagi]

That's fair but then his ruling is pretty much doomed to failure. I just wanted to point out there was an actual argument there.