U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Congress overstepped its bounds by instituting the individual mandate, but also said the entire law was unconstitutional since the individual mandate is not “severable.” Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the “individual mandate” that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void. Vinson did not go as far as to issue an injunction blocking the law from being implemented.

“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 andregulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here,” Vinson wrote.

“While the individual mandate was clearly ‘necessary and essential’ to the act as drafted, it is not ‘necessary and essential’ to health care reform in general,” he continued. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.”

The decision will likely face an immediate filing by the federal government for a stay, and the case is undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court.

Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law’s requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled for the state’s claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

Hudson’s eagerly awaited decision invalidates the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a federal fine. Hudson’s decision is the first striking down part of the controversial legislation.

“It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue — it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance,” wrote Hudson who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. “An enactment that exceeds the power of Congress to adopt adversely affects everyone in every application.”

The Obama administration is likely to appeal Monday’s ruling to the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. It is widely expected that no matter the outcome before that court, the case will ultimately go before the Supreme Court, perhaps by this time next year.

In his ruling, Hudson wrote that he is severing that portion of the law, known as Section 1501, but is not granting an injunction against the entire law.

But Section 1501 is the portion of the law that collects most of the money that is supposed to flow into the system from millions of additional participants. Without it, the law’s execution could be severely compromised and could rock the foundation of other provisions in the legislation.

The lawsuit is just one of nearly two dozen challenges filed in federal courts across the country. Another high-profile suit filed in Florida and joined by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses will go before Judge Roger Vinson on Thursday.

While the individual mandate to buy insurance is just one part of Obamacare, it is definitely a crucial aspect to it, since the requirement that everyone be part of it is what ensures a sufficiently diversified risk pool.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law’s implementation, noting that its two major provisions—the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets—don’t take effect until 2014.

The central issue in Virginia’s lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government’s reach.

The central issue in Virginia’s lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum lawsuit against Obamacare can proceed says Florida judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola today allowed portions of the claims by 20 states to go forward, as he forecast he would after a day of oral arguments last month. The requirement to purchase health insurance is “simply without prior precedent,” Vinson wrote, allowing the suit to proceed.

“People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it,” Vinson wrote in the 65-page decision. “Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized.”

Vinson previously scheduled arguments for Dec. 16 on whether the law, signed by Obama in March, is constitutional.

The judge threw out Florida’s claims that the law interferes with the state’s sovereignty as an employer and that the individual mandate violated the right to due process of law.

The focus of efforts to undo what the administration considers a key legislative achievement now shifts to Richmond, Virginia, where a similar lawsuit by the state survived a bid for dismissal in April. A judge there scheduled an Oct. 18 hearing on the law’s constitutionality.

The states contend that the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance exceeds the constitutional power of Congress.

Government’s Argument

The government counters that the mandate is covered by its authority to regulate interstate commerce, since billions of dollars a year in unpaid medical bills are absorbed by the market.

Joining Florida in the suit were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. The National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business lobbying group, also joined.

The Florida and Virginia suits were filed within minutes of Obama’s signing the legislation.

Besides its effect on individuals, the legislation puts an unconstitutional burden on state budgets by expanding Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, the states say.

Defining Activity

In a Sept. 14 hearing, Vinson questioned whether people who don’t buy health insurance can be considered actively participating in commerce and taxed for it. The U.S. previously claimed that the possibility of being injured and unable to pay medical bills is enough to draw a link between commerce and taxation.

“They are attempting to take inactivity and are making it activity,” said Randy Barnett, a constitutional-law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center said in an interview before the ruling. “The question of whether something is activity, and you don’t make inactivity into activity by saying is has an effect.”

The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

Senate confirms Elana Kagan 63-37 as Supreme Court Justice.

Kagan, Obama’s solicitor general and the former dean of Harvard Law School, will join the high court after its summer recess ends later this year, replacing retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, 90. As expected, the 63-37 vote confirming Kagan, who also served in the Clinton administration, was largely along party lines, with just five Republicans voting with Democrats to confirm her – and one Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), voting no.

Full Story: Politico

NBC News’s Pete Williams reports:

Kagan, 50, served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009. Obama nominated her to serve in her current post as solicitor general early in 2009, and she won Senate confirmation by a vote of 61-31. She is the first woman to serve as solicitor general of the United States.

She was widely viewed as a front-runner when Obama was considering candidates for a Supreme Court opening last year, but the president ultimately chose Sonia Sotomayor for the job.

Unlike the other Supreme Court justices, Kagan has never before served as a federal judge.

Kagan would be the fourth woman ever nominated to the high court and continue a trend of Ivy League-educated lawyers who sit on the bench.

Virginia State Capitol

RICHMOND, VA – Virginia state law makers passed laws earlier this month that are intended to nullify proposed health-care legislation that carries with it mandates for individuals to purchase health insurance.

Virginia is the first state to pass a law that would allow its residents to opt out of the proposed federal requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance, which is one of the elements of the proposed health care bill currently pending in Congress. State legislatures in Idaho and Utah also approved similar measures this month that would limit the scope of the proposed legislation. Several other state legislatures also are considering similar laws and are promoting constitutional amendments that would limit federal requirements. Most are following Virginia’s lead in nullifying the mandate on health insurance…

Will laws pass by states that would exempt their citizens from a federal law requiring all individuals to carry health insurance be able to stand up constitutionally?

Proponents of the new Virginia law cite the tenth amendment plus existing case law, but others have serious doubts that states can override Federal law. States have tried to resist federal laws before. For example, southern states tried this approach in the 1950s as a way avoid school integration.

The problem lies in the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause which essentially says that federal laws reign supreme.

The state bills are prone to be challenged in court. This would setup new legal battles over whether federal law can trump state laws.

The issue is heating up and is being debated all over the blogs. For example, in a recent article on the USA website, Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center, a non-partisan think tank in Los Angeles raises the question, “If there are enough states or people refusing to comply … what’s the federal government going to do?” The Tenth Amendment Center is an advocate for individual and states’ rights.

The Tenth Amendment Center website for the state of Colorado also discusses this issue. In an article written by Geoff Broughton, he asks a couple of important questions:

This leaves you with two very important questions you should answer before you make up your mind.  First, does the Constitution allow congress to mandate health insurance be purchased by every citizen simply for being alive?  Second, if the answer is no, what can be done if the Congress passes a law it is not legally allowed to pass?

The Arizona state Legislature passed a ballot measure in June that that will be put to the voters to decide. The issue is scheduled to go to Arizona voters in November, when they will be asked to amend the state’s constitution. If passed, the amendment would say that no “person or employer” could be compelled to participate in a health care system or insurance plan or pay a penalty for not participating.

Arizona Republican Rep. Nancy Barto sponsored the bill against the federal mandate in the state House. The USA Today article goes on to say that Barto expects the ballot initiative to pass but she also expects a legal challenge. “We are ready to fight that battle for the sake of all the states that are doing this,” Barto says.

At least four other states are also working on legislation or constitutional amendments – Utah, Idaho, Florida and Louisiana.

White House May Obtain Power Over Internet

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, along with his aides, have spent months behind closed doors drafting a revised U.S. Senate bill that proposes giving the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”  Read full story here

Find a lawyer
Internet Lawyers
Constitutional Lawyers

sonia-sotomayor

I am concerned about Sonia Sotomayor being confirmed as the latest supreme court judge. I am not comfortable with her decision in New Haven Connencut that ruled against the firefighters being promoted on merit. That was a bad decision and is being appealed to the Supreme Court. I am also very uncomfortable with her remarks found on the Youtube video where she speaks of policy being made from the bench.

Her latest quote “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” doesn’t bother me as much. I don’t think she is a racist.

Leading conservative commentators and news outlets have jumped on the 2001 Sonia Sotomayor quote claiming that she has said that Latinas are better than white men. If you read the quote in context, it’s clear that Sotomayor was merely saying that it’s inevitable that a judge’s personal race-based and gender-based experiences will impact judging, particularly in race and sex discrimination cases. As a result, she said, while such formative experiences can be enriching and contribute to wise decisions, a judge should also be aware of them in order to avoid being wholly dominated by them. She vowed “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives.”…

Rush Limbaugh, in an apparent reaction to the quote, said that Sotomayor is a “reverse racist” who “has put down white men in favor of Latina women.” Fox News’ Megyn Kelly said it shows Sotomayor thinks “that Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges.”

Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, said it shows that Sotomayor wants her personal experiences to “cloud her jurisprudence.”

“I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences, but I accept my limitations,” she said — the opposite of what critics claim she said. This quote is from a socialist. So if you beleive your future is determined by the friends you keep, then we should have something to worry about.

Obama has stated that he is looking to appoint a judge with empathy. When was that ever a requirement in determining consitiutional law. The constitution is what it it. It is not a living document that should be activated and changed from the bench.

I predict that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed. The democrats outweigh the Repubicans on this one.

If you need to find a lawyer, visit our attorneys directory.