“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate,” Judge Roger Vinson writes. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.” (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40520) District Judge Roger Vinson hails form in Pensacola, Florida. He sided with 26 suing states.
Will those Senators who’re up for re-election in 2012 bring themselves to vote with their lower-chamber colleagues to repeal the thing? Will the same representatives admit that forcing an individual to purchase a product is wrong, and certainly beyond their mandate?
I doubt it. They’ll tell us that the (Rousseauist) common good, as defined by the state, takes precedent over the common man. We have not heard the last from Obama’s advancing Politburo Of Proctologists.
UPDATE: Vinson’s is really a beautifully written and reasoned Decision. It cleaves to the Constitution. Keith Olbermann’s proxies have begun to tarnish Judge Vinson as a judicial activist, whatever that means. Do these sound like unfair proceedings?
Both sides have filed strong and well researched memoranda in support of their motions for summary judgment (“Mem.”), responses in opposition (“Opp.”), and replies (“Reply”) in further support. I held a lengthy hearing and oral argument on the motions December 16, 2010 (“Tr.”). In addition to this extensive briefing by the parties, numerous organizations and individuals were granted leave to, and did, file amicus curiae briefs (sixteen total) in support of the arguments and claims at issue.
“… I conclude that the individual mandate seeks to regulate economic inactivity, which is the very opposite of economic activity. And because activity is required under the Commerce Clause, the individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law….”
AND:
The individual mandate is outside Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and it cannot be otherwise authorized by an assertion of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is not Constitutional. Accordingly, summary judgment must be
granted in favor of the plaintiffs… ”
Also adjudicated was the state plaintiffs objection “to the fundamental and ‘massive’
changes in the nature and scope of the Medicaid program that the Act will bring about. They contend that the Act violates the Spending Clause [U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1] as it significantly expands and alters the Medicaid program to such an extent they cannot afford the newly-imposed costs and burdens. They insist that they have no choice but to remain in Medicaid as amended by the Act, which will eventually require them to ‘run their budgets off a cliff.’ This is alleged to violate the Constitutional spending principles set forth in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), and in other cases.5 Under Dole, there are four restrictions on Congress’ Constitutional spending
power: (1) the spending must be for the general welfare; (2) the conditions must be stated clearly and unambiguously; (3) the conditions must bear a relationship to the purpose of the program; and 4) the conditions imposed may not require states ‘to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.’ Supra, 483 U.S. at 207-10. In addition, a spending condition cannot be ‘coercive.’ This conceptional requirement is also from Dole, where the Supreme Court speculated (in dicta at the end of that opinion) that ‘in some circumstances the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.’ … If that line is crossed, the Spending Clause is violated.”
[SNIP]
Left-liberals believe a judicial activist is someone who reverses precedent. Republicans think a judicial activist is someone who disobeys the President. That’s the sum total of how the two parties relate to the law.