Thread: Judge Vinson's Bittersweet ObamaCare Ruling

The unmitigated arrogance of Obama, Reid and Pelosi -- as witnessed in the health care "reform" debacle -- is pushing even postmodern constitutional jurisprudence to its very limits

February 05, 2011

Judge Vinson's Bittersweet ObamaCare Ruling

By Monte Kuligowski
8 Comments

Ruling that the ObamaCare insurance mandate is unconstitutional is like saying that water is wet. Of course it's an unconstitutional abuse of federal power. If the feds can force people to buy health insurance, there is virtually no limit to the reach of federal meddling into the affairs of life.

In a sense, it's fortunate that the unmitigated arrogance of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi -- as witnessed in the health care "reform" debacle -- is pushing even postmodern constitutional jurisprudence to its very limits.

Two federal district court judges have concluded that ObamaCare is constitutional. In doing so, they wandered into the red-herring inquiry of whether not having a fully insured populace would affect the goals of central-control health care reform. If that's the question, then judges may also conclude that what federal subjects eat and how much they exercise are also areas within the reach of the federal reform scheme.

Judge C.R. Vinson's recent district court ruling was issued out of Florida in the consolidated case against ObamaCare brought by 26 states -- Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM153_vin.pdf

The media are reporting the ObamaCare court scorecard as two and two. But including the Virginia ruling, it's more accurate to say that 27 states have achieved the first round of victory over a misnomer: namely, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

While I applaud Judge Vinson for his ruling declaring the entire ObamaCare Act unconstitutional and "void," his opinion is nevertheless troubling. His ruling is an example of what is often wrong with conservative jurisprudence. The ruling is judicially analogous to old-school Republicans who feel compelled to repeat the liberal narratives whenever they see a microphone. What comes to mind is the spectacle of John McCain, et al., perpetually praising Obama for his "intelligence," "likeability," and most recently for having "learned" and "changed" during his two years in office. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/ ... 1295804250

In reaching his conclusion, Judge Vinson unnecessary repeats several liberal narratives. Vinson states:

Everyone recognizes the existing problems in our national health care system in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation.

In actuality, there is no universal agreement as to what the problems are or which solutions, if any, the feds should implement to make the systems better. Mr. Obama rode the media and pep-rally circuit for almost two years, reinforcing the narrative that the U.S. health care system is broken. In doing so, he demonized both health insurance companies and doctors. Obama had the audacity to accuse doctors of heinous greed, http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-doctors-c ... physicians suggesting that under the current system, doctors may be performing unnecessary surgery for profit. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 48330.html The many narratives of the far left on health care have become the templates for not only the media, but, it appears, for the judiciary as well.

Judge Vinson could just as easily have stated that "widespread sentiment" exists that the United States has the best health care system in the world, and therefore "this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation."

In the quote above, Vinson goes on to say that federal reform "is obviously a very difficult task." Not only is that statement irrelevant to the case, but it is also another ruse of the left. Many conservatives believe that Congress should operate merely within the limitations of the Commerce Clause and regulate health insurance commerce among the states (making all insurance available across state lines). That would not be an "obviously difficult task"; that task could be accomplished with ten pages of legislation (as opposed to three thousand), which would lower costs and improve the quality of care immediately.

In the quote below, the judge regrets that the mandate doesn't make the constitutional cut but clarifies that other than imposing a mandate, Congress practically has no limits:

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market.

If Congress exceeded the bounds of the Constitution, why is Vinson reluctant to strike the law down? "At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country," Vinson writes, "it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'" Wow. Is the act's (misleading) title so impressive that a judge must pay homage by "reluctantly" declaring the law unconstitutional?

Why not just strike down the law? And why does Vinson feel the need to give credence to the flawed idea that Congress may address the "inequities in our health care system" and "reform" the market?

In context, the Commerce Clause gives Congress authority only to regulate commerce among the several states -- i.e., make commerce uniform, fair, and regular among the states. Absolutely no authority exists within the Constitution for Congress to "overhaul" the health care systems of the states.

Regarding his decision to strike down the law because of the individual insurance mandate, Judge Vinson states that his "conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court's current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that."

The good judge just defined rule by judicial oligarchy. If the Supreme Court can "expand that," who needs a constitutional amendment? Do we even have a Constitution when only a few unelected elites may say exclusively what it means?

Judge Vinson's thought process is common among jurists of the day and supports the current unconstitutional rule of the U.S. Supreme Court. No matter how far-removed from the limits imposed by the actual Constitution its rulings may be, the Supreme Court effectively and routinely amends the Constitution by a decree of five.

Judge Vinson's ruling is being hailed as a victory for conservatives, and to a large degree, it is one. But until we get back to the place from which federal judges can say, "Only a Constitutional amendment can expand the limits imposed on the federal government," the long-term forecast is cloudy with a chance of federal tyranny.

Monte Kuligowski is an attorney whose work has been published in several law journals.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/ ... _obam.html

Enter Judge Vinson

February 05, 2011

The Constitution Lives to Fight Another Day

By Peter Heck
3 Comments

Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the Constitution of the United States lives to fight another day. With as bloodied and beaten as her carefully articulated prohibitions against the overreach of governmental power had become following years of abuse, America's great charter found a champion in Judge C. Roger Vinson and his stinging rebuke of ObamaCare. If upheld by the appellate courts (which must be considered quite plausible, if not likely), Vinson's opinion will not only turned back an unprecedented attempt at expanding the power of the federal government far beyond its intended scope, but it will also provide a catalyst for a return to constitutional government in the United States.

That is no small feat given where we were just 24 months ago, when Barack Obama was delivering his inaugural address and verbally shaking the foundation of constitutionalism by frightfully articulating a governing philosophy far removed from the author of that Constitution, James Madison, who wrote in Federalist 41, "Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question." In what should have been a grave foreshadowing of what was to come, Obama dismissed Madison's counsel and decreed a brave new approach: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works."

Years of historical revisionism and benign neglect in our civics and government classrooms allowed that profound dichotomy between the Father of the Constitution and the man we had just hired to be its guardian slip by unnoticed. Only when Obama appeared poised to break a campaign promise and sign into law a health care bill that would compel every American to purchase government-approved health insurance did the dwindling flames of what George Washington called the "sacred fire of liberty" begin to rekindle.

The embers began to glow in congressional town hall meetings, where lawmakers like Pete Stark (D-CA) preposterously answered constituents thus: "The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country." The smoke began billowing when concerned citizens who were informing themselves on what was happening in Washington were patronizingly told by representatives like Joe Donnelly (D-IN) to "turn off the TV and listen to a Frank Sinatra record." And dismissive attitudes about the constitutionality of their actions, like that coming from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) when she responded to such a challenge by flippantly scoffing, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" firmly ignited a movement dedicated to restoring the lost principles of federalism.

Enter Judge Vinson, who, rightly interpreting his first obligation, set aside all peripheral questions about the uninsured, ObamaCare's potential for success, the debt it will bring or not bring, or the intent of its authors. In a statement that reflected the wisdom expressed in Federalist 41, Vinson confirmed that "this case ... is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government." Somewhere, upon hearing those words, James Madison was smiling.

Whether the federal government has the authority to take on such monstrous power, after all, was to be the "first question." Yet, quite tellingly, it has become the one question that the supporters of ObamaCare have avoided at all costs. Well, perhaps that's not fair. Then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) did make an effort to address it, explaining to a reporter that Congress got their authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance "under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others."

Though there is no such thing as the "Good and Welfare Clause," we can assume Conyers was referring to the "General Welfare" clause. But if so, it appears that he bears the same antipathy towards James Madison that President Obama does. For it was Madison who cautioned, "With respect to the two words general welfare, to take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Given that Madison was one of those creators, Conyers might want to defer to him on this one.

Perhaps wanting to avoid that embarrassment, most ObamaCare defenders (including the administration itself) have attempted to excuse their unconstitutional overreach on the basis of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate goods exchanged across state lines. Of course, ObamaCare is an entirely different animal. It compels a passive person to engage in commerce, just so Congress can regulate him.

Vinson properly excoriated this rationale, reasoning, "If [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party ... it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted." That might please Pete Stark, but it doesn't meet Constitutional muster, as explained (once again) by the document's primary author, James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money ... the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

This was the spirit of Judge Vinson's ruling, which is what makes it so significant. It is a landmark decision for individual liberty and limited government that very well may prove to be the ultimate undoing of the ObamaCare nightmare.

Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana. Visit www.peterheck.com.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/ ... _figh.html

many links on this post; go to the link above to view them