Breaking: ObamaCare Unconstitutional - Summary And Opinion

I did a fairly quick read-through of the decision, and am ready with a summary and my opinion on it.

The judge ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Here are a couple of snippets from the decision that give you a basic idea.

The individual mandate "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution".

"The legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds"

He ruled that Congress did not have the legal power to force people to purchase health insurance, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He also ruled that the law was severable, i.e. he only overturned the individual mandate, the rest of ObamaCare remains in place. He also denied Virginia's request for injunctive relief, so they will still be bound by the rest of the law.

By and large, I agreed with his ruling. His analysis was comprehensive and fairly convincing. I urge you to read the decision... It's only 43 pages.
http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health%20Care%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf


But I didn't agree with ALL of it. The part I didn't agree with was when he decided to sever the individual mandate and leave the rest of the law intact. I understand that he has to respect the actions of Congress as much as possible, but... Let me explain.

The government argued that the individual mandate was the essential to the functioning of the health care bill as a whole. They claimed it was the lynch pin, the keystone of the entire thing. The REASON they did that was to try and make the mandate constitutional under existing SCOTUS precedent.

You see, previous SCOTUS rulings have shown that an action by Congress is Constitutional if Congress had a rational basis to decide it was necessary and if that measure doesn't violate a specific Constitutional prohibition. The government claimed that Congress had a rational basis, and that means the mandate is de facto Constitutional. From the decision:

Furthermore, the Secretary adds that "for the provisions of a complex regulatory program' to fall within Congress's commerce power, 'it is enough that the challenged provisions are an integral part of the regulatory program and that the regulatory scheme when considered as a whole satisfies this test."

So they had to establish that the individual mandate was essential, and they argued that through the entire case.

HOWEVER... And there's ALWAYS a however.

When asked about severability, the government argued FOR it. In other words, if the judge found the individual mandate was unconstitutional, he should sever it and leave the rest of the law intact.

Sever it? Remove the lynch pin, the keystone, the essential center of ObamaCare?

You see my problem? They argued both sides of the issue, tried to have their cake and eat it, too. They claimed it was essential, UNLESS the judge tossed it out, in which case the law would work fine without it.

And it worked. The judge severed the provision. I am NOT a judge, nor even a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the judge accepted their claim that the mandate was essential to the law, then the entire law should have been tossed along with the individual mandate.

Anyway, in general the decision was a good one. I don't agree with all that he did, but the center of his ruling was on point: Congress and the Federal Government cannot force us to purchase products we do not wish to purchase. That way lies slavery.

This thing is heading to the Supreme Court, for certain. Let's hope those nine wise souls recognize that a Federal Government that can force us to buy things we don't wish to buy has no limits; at that point, freedom becomes a quaint concept with no place in American society.