If you'd like to read the entire decision, you may do so here:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_vin.html
The following excerpt is from the conclusion of judge Roger Vinson's ruling:
The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone 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. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
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. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.
In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my 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.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED.
In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.
This is an excellent ruling that is already being blasted by those on the left.
I will stand by what I said months ago...it was all pieced together to fall apart. It's a game to have a major topic for the 2012 election...that's all. As the Supreme Court eventually tosses the legit nature of the healthcare program by the end of this year...it'll simply turn into a political topic.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to get real healthcare for America in 2012 then? Vote and elect President Obama and enough Democratic Senators to ensure a control device when one of the right-leaning Justices has to retire over the next four years.
The 2,000 page bill was simply a game to keep the media talking and take up almost a year on the front page of every newspaper in America. You've got fifty million Americans who are still charged up and pumped up over the whole foundation of the universal healthcare program.
It's almost comical how you come to view a Constitutional piece over commerce...and you could require a guy to buy health insurance, toilet paper, hand creme, or Turtle Wax...just by passing a law.