The opinion isn’t on the court website yet, but here’s how The Wall Street Journal describes it:
A federal appeals court in Washington ruled Tuesday that last year’s federal health-care overhaul is constitutional, handing the Obama administration another legal victory ahead of the Supreme Court’s likely consideration of the law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-to-1 that Congress, acting under its power to regulate interstate commerce, had the authority to require individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty.
“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins,” Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote for the court.
Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee, joined the ruling. Judge Brett
Kavanaugh, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dissented.
Obesity is a national problem. It is imperative that the federal government issue regulations requiring each individual to eat Broccoli instead of french fries as a side dish, regardless of the main course. Why not?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If Congress is “free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins” what was the point of the framers enumerating Congress’ powers? Really what is going on here is a change in mindset of lawyers, judges and the public.
Think of Nancy Pelosi’s refrain “are you serious” when she was asked about Congress’ authority to enact the health care legislation. To too many “legal authorities” these days, what Pelosi said is true.
Prohibition was enacted through a Constitutional amendment. Why? Surely, alcoholism with all of its attendant medical and social costs was a “national problem” requiring a “national solution” to wit prohibition. Sure there were issues of liquor produced within a state and sold within the same state. But the rights of these in state producers to be free from federal regulation surely must yield in the face of great national problems.
Prohibition advocates knew that the Courts of that day would strike down any federal legislation entirely banning the sale of alcohol as unconstitutional as well beyond Congress’ power under the commerce clause.
Many of today’s judges wouldn’t even spot that issue. We can’t ban alcohol! Are you serious?
Wow, and Silberman is a *Reagan* appointee? Ronnie must be spinning in his grave right bow.
and now we are one step closer to being ruled
Like a law will make anyone lose weight, least of all a kid. What would be the ‘or else,’ as in ‘Lose weight or…’? Can they mandate a kid lose weight (or else)?
One UK couple had their children taken by Social Services because their children were overweight:
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15411313
How is being taken from your home and parents suppose to help kids lose weight?
Lose weight or else… you will be forced to pay for a liposuction. Or else you will be forced to pay for a tummy tuck. Or else you will be forced to pay a penalty for not getting either of the above.
All justified because being overweight is a “potential” drain on the health care system.
It wouldn’t be if people had to pay for their insurance and health care themselves. One of the worst things that happened to health care was government interference. When I grew up (born 1950), no one we knew even had health insurance.
Here is how one family handled the cost of life-saving surgery in 1932:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6032/6327117190_729922bd6d_b.jpg
Government of enumerated powers? Nah.
How can health care insurance be considered interstate commerce since I can not purchase such insurance across state lines?
As Mark Levin has said, we are living in a post-constitutional era.
Time to pass a law mandating that every person must own and carry a fire arm. I mean, crime is a national problem, no?
best reply ever
Unemployment and underemployment are national problems. Congress should make it illegal not to have a job which pays at least the national average.
And yes, I understand the math involved.
Yup… and since unemployment and underemployment are such huge drains on the country, the goverment should pass a law mandating people work for them, picking crops, digging ditches, etc…
Oh wait…
We are heading back toward slavery, but at least it will be universal… unless you have a government “job.”
“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins…
The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute?! Spoken like a garden variety tyrant and despot. And this is a Reagan appointee?
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “
congress can force us to buy it but we can’t force them to. remember they are exempt from this.
This is why we must win control of both the House, Senate and White House and repeal Obamacare in its entirety. The economy cannot surivive the full implementation of Obamacare. I have donated to fiscally Conservative candidates who have promised to repeal Obamacare. Jim De Mint has endorsed some great candidates at the Senate Conservatives Fund if you have a few dollars to spare.
I think the problem stems from EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) which mandated (I’m paraphrasing) that a Medicare-participating hospital must provide emergency care (including labor) regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. From then, the government has been paying more and more for medical bills for people unable (or unwilling) to pay. This court says the Obamacare mandate is constitutional because the government ends up paying for people who don’t pay for themselves (one could even back it up to the enactmentof Medicare and Medicaid.) If government would get out of the medical care business, then the taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for all of these medical expenses, thus Congress wouldn’t feel compelled to mandate insurance coverage.
“Obesity is a national problem. It is imperative that the federal government issue regulations requiring each individual to eat Broccoli instead of french fries as a side dish, regardless of the main course. Why not?”
In one of the Obamacare cases, a judge asked the DOJ attourney this question, in very similar terms. The lawyer tried to laugh it off. The judge pressed him on it and the lawyer said he beleived that it would be constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring people to eat brocolli.
I caught a part of Mark Levin tonight outlining why the Reagan-appointed judge’s ruling was waaaaay off. He was quite disappointed. Also, Mark went into detail as to why the infamous Wickard v. Filmore precedent under FDR doesn’t apply. [Note: his site will update with tonight’s show shortly.]
Very enlightening. Also, it makes me thankful that Mark Levin’s Liberty Legal Foundation has had a large part in writing briefs and opinions to the court(s) about the UN-constitutionality of the ObamaCare mandate.
Very thankful. 😀