Appeals court rules in favor of states, individual mandate unconstitutional but rest of ACA holds

[^_^ 5,021]

The administration received a mixed ruling from the federal Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit today, which ruled in the case brought by Florida and 22 other states that the mandate is unconstitutional, but that it can be severed from the rest of the law and the remainder of the law stands.

From the very long ruling (pp. 205-06):

We first conclude that the Act’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional.

Existing Supreme Court precedent does not establish that Congress’s inducements are unconstitutionally coercive, especially when the federal government will bear nearly all the costs of the program’s amplified enrollments.

Next, the individual mandate was enacted as a regulatory penalty, not a revenue-raising tax, and cannot be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The mandate is denominated as a penalty in the Act itself, and the legislative history and relevant case law confirm this reading of its function.

Further,

the individual mandate exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional

. This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives. We have not found any generally applicable, judicially enforceable limiting principle that would permit us to uphold the mandate without obliterating the boundaries inherent in the system of enumerated congressional powers. “Uniqueness” is not a constitutional principle in any antecedent Supreme Court decision. The individual mandate also finds no refuge in the aggregation doctrine, for decisions to abstain from the purchase of a product or service, whatever their cumulative effect, lack a sufficient nexus to commerce.

The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the remainder of the Act’s myriad reforms.

The presumption of severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional system. The Act’s other provisions remain legally operative after the mandate’s excision, and the high burden needed under Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of severability has not been met.

That means that they affirm the lower court's ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional but they reverse that court's decision on the severability of the mandate, meaning the rest of the law stands.

Ultimately, this is going to be decided by the Supreme Court. So far, the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by three lower-level district courts, while two other district courts have struck down all or part of it. This ruling is in conflict with the Sixth District Court of Appeals which ruled earlier this summer that the mandate is indeed constitutional.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/12/1006258/-Appeals-court-rules-in-favor-of-states,-individual-mandate-unconstitutional-but-rest-of-ACA-holds

Edited August 12, 2011 by \

[mawilson 2,133]

the mandate is unconstitutional, but that it can be severed from the rest of the law and the remainder of the law stands.

It really can't. Without the individual mandate provision, the law is as good as dead.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In a blistering dissent, Judge Stanley Marcus, also a Clinton appointee but a Republican originally nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan, intimated that his colleagues were legislating from the bench. "Quite simply, the majority would presume to sit as a superlegislature, offering ways in which Congress could have legislated more efficaciously or more narrowly," he wrote. "This approach ignores the wide regulatory latitude afforded to Congress, under its Commerce Clause power, to address what in its view are substantial problems, and it misapprehends the role of a reviewing court. As nonelected judicial officers, we are not afforded the opportunity to rewrite statutes we don't like, or to craft a legislative response more sharply than the legislative branch of government has chosen."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The part that is amusing to me is that the court would try and segregate it from the bill, when the SCOTUS has always ruled that you cannot seperate items from pieces of legislation. If the President cannot do it with his Veto pen, then the courts surely cannot with their rulings. THAT is judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

Either the entire law it good, or the entire law is constitutional. It cannot be half and half.

The mandate should be struck down, that's for damn sure. The absurd reasoning people give in support of it is dangerous. Extremely dangerous actually. "we the people" are no longer "we the people" if this type of thing stays in effect. We are now slaves to the government, and slaves to the insurance industry. Yet many seem to ignore this little fact. We are at the call of the government to do what they say, when they tell us to, or face the consequences. That's a scary precedent to set. There's a difference in every day taxation on things, and requiring a purchase of a product. That's not "regulating commerce" (which is more limited than the dissenting judge makes it out to be) that's demanding commerce. Forcing consumerism. That is not within the powers of congress or anyone for that matter. That's like telling people, well if you want to buy a loaf of bread, then you also MUST purcahse jelly. Otherwise no bread for you. You're hurting the jelly industry and inflating prices by not buying jelly, which is effecting comemrce, so therefore you must buy jelly.... See what I mean? The reasoning is ridiculous.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The remainder of the law is worthless if we cannot be forced to participate. It means the only thing Obama has accomplished is the further destruction of the economy.

The government will challenge this to the Supreme Court as the law is worthless without this portion.

This is good news, it means the end of Obamacare. Good riddance.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If Obama has the balls he will take this to the Supreme Court where it is very likely they will strike down the entire law. If he does not, he is left with empty legislation with no one to play (and pay)

[TBoneTX 46,379]

We are at the call of the government to do what they say, when they tell us to, or face the consequences.

The Federal government has unlimited time and resources to make our lives miserable, sigh man...

[scandal 951]

Ultimately, this is going to be decided by the Supreme Court. So far, the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by three lower-level district courts, while two other district courts have struck down all or part of it. This ruling is in conflict with the Sixth District Court of Appeals which ruled earlier this summer that the mandate is indeed constitutional.

One wonders if everybody with a 2 bit comment on this board every actually bothers to READ the friggin OP before yapping on it. AJ even went so far as to highlight the relevant bits, little good does that do. Here, I've put it in bright red for all to see.

[Pooky 3,849]

One wonders if everybody with a 2 bit comment on this board every actually bothers to READ the friggin OP before yapping on it. AJ even went so far as to highlight the relevant bits, little good does that do. Here, I've put it in bright red for all to see.

So, the courts are roughly equally divided in their opinion. Big deal.

This was always going all the way to the Supreme Court, where there is only one court and one ruling, rather than the plethora of different courts, different biases and different rulings.

[scandal 951]

So, the courts are roughly equally divided in their opinion. Big deal.

This was always going all the way to the Supreme Court, where there is only one court and one ruling, rather than the plethora of different courts, different biases and different rulings.

Exactly

[dalegg 143]

So this will be hitting the Supreme court, right around say...the first Presidential debate?