For a quick overview of the five major constitutional issues that have produced a tsunami of lawsuits challenging ObamaCare, Quin Hillyer provides the following summary:
1) The individual mandate:
Every one of the cases involves a challenge, on one ground or another, to Obamacare’s “individual mandate” forcing the purchase of health insurance. The argument is simple: Challengers say that the federal government has no authority to require the purchase of any particular good or service. Yes, the Constitution gives Congress the power over interstate commerce - but, say the critics, in no way does that give Congress authority over an individual’s decision not to engage in commerce at all. Otherwise, Congress could force you to buy broccoli, or a Rolls Royce, or even a polka-dotted tutu. Clearly, this would make a mockery of the very ideas of individual freedom and limited government.
2) Federal coercion of the states:
In State of Florida v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, 25 other states joined the Sunshine State not just in opposition to the individual mandate, but also to the massive changes in the joint federal/state health program for the indigent known as Medicaid. Supreme Court precedent has established that the federal government may not use the federal purse strings to “coerce” the states to take certain actions to which the state otherwise object. The 26 states argue that the Medicaid provisions force them into what District Court Judge Roger Vinson described as “an untenable Hobson’s Choice. They must either (1) accept the Act’s transformed Medicaid program with its new costs and obligations, which they cannot afford, or (2) exit the program altogether and lose the federal matching funds that are necessary and essential to provide health care coverage to their neediest citizens.” So far, no court has upheld this complaint, but it could be revived.
3) The tax bait-and-switch:
In Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, an appeals court in Virginia ruled that the state’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, had no legal “standing” to sue at all because, said the judges, the “mandate” is actually a tax - and no one can sue to block a tax that hasn’t taken effect yet. In essence, this is an argument about whether the financial fine for ignoring the mandate is a “tax” or a “penalty.” President Obama himself argued repeatedly to the media that it was not a tax, but now his administration argues that it is a tax just in order to avoid the lawsuit. Every court other than the Virginia one has laughed the “tax” claim out of court, though, so Cuccinelli has a good chance to win on this issue in the long run. If so, he might then have a clear shot to argue his next point, below.
4) Violation of state sovereignty:
Before Obamacare was voted on, Virginia passed a state law establishing that no Virginia resident “shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage.” By trying to override that state law, says Cuccinelli, Obamacare would violate Virginia’s sovereignty over its citizens. Cuccinelli filed his Supreme Court appeal on Monday.
5) IPAB:
Finally, [Coons v. Geithner] attacks a second feature of Obamacare: the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a 15-member body of bureaucrats empowered to make sweeping health-care policy decisions without significant overview from Congress, the president, or courts - and, amazingly, that future Congresses would have little power to repeal. The Goldwater Institute think tank argues, with ample precedent behind it, that the Constitution doesn’t allow Congress to “abdicate” so much of its legislative authority or to “bind” future Congresses from undoing current legislation.
There is actually a sixth constitutional issue as well. Philip Hamburger, Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, believes that all the ObamaCare waivers violate the Constitution as well.
What a pig’s breakfast.
Post a Comment