He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
trzaska2000 Send a noteboard - 13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
.....mandate everyone buy HC. Pretty logical decision by the judge:
In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.
The judge wrote that his survey of case law “yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, not withstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.”
----------------------------------
Essentially, how could you claim the Commerce Clause gives you power to mandate the purchase of a product if an individual decided not to engage in any commerce whatsoever (i.e., doesn't want to buy the product)?
In a 42-page opinion issued in Richmond, Va., Judge Hudson wrote that the law’s central requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The insurance mandate is central to the law’s mission of covering more than 30 million uninsured because insurers argue that only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions.
The judge wrote that his survey of case law “yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, not withstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme.”
----------------------------------
Essentially, how could you claim the Commerce Clause gives you power to mandate the purchase of a product if an individual decided not to engage in any commerce whatsoever (i.e., doesn't want to buy the product)?
*MySmiley*
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law -
13/12/2010 05:21:37 PM
- 1030 Views

*yawn*
13/12/2010 05:46:58 PM
- 690 Views
Another step closer to SCOTUS.....and that will be 5-4 decision in favor of repeal!
*NM*
13/12/2010 05:55:54 PM
- 268 Views

So riddle me this...
13/12/2010 07:23:14 PM
- 680 Views
He's not "making his own law", just denying the government the ability to.....
13/12/2010 08:06:48 PM
- 644 Views
That wasn't my question.
13/12/2010 09:10:39 PM
- 747 Views
I get what you're saying...
13/12/2010 11:30:13 PM
- 740 Views
Agreed; when do I get a refund for my share of the B2 bomber?
14/12/2010 04:40:25 AM
- 679 Views
But see...you are using the B2 bomber.
14/12/2010 03:59:27 PM
- 610 Views
Much as you are using the healthcare system.
14/12/2010 05:55:40 PM
- 730 Views
*nods*
14/12/2010 06:09:42 PM
- 703 Views
Again we're back to whether individuals deign to tolerate majority rule.
14/12/2010 07:27:22 PM
- 822 Views
It's judicial review
14/12/2010 02:47:43 PM
- 698 Views
I really don't understand why people defend the forced purchase aspect
13/12/2010 08:22:03 PM
- 719 Views
This analogy no doubt has its flaws too, but I was just reminded of it...
13/12/2010 08:52:31 PM
- 730 Views
Forced insurance purchase would indeed be terribly unconstitutional.
14/12/2010 04:26:27 AM
- 648 Views
there is a major problem with this..
14/12/2010 01:29:41 AM
- 693 Views
Bad analogy.....
14/12/2010 02:57:28 AM
- 646 Views
Re: Bad analogy.....
14/12/2010 03:23:31 AM
- 661 Views
Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
14/12/2010 03:42:26 AM
- 642 Views
Re: Not everyone uses the HC system and many can pay for it without insurance.....
14/12/2010 04:53:39 AM
- 662 Views
Just to note....
14/12/2010 06:11:57 PM
- 661 Views
yeah, but the courts exist to strike down dumb legislation, which is what this ruling does
14/12/2010 03:17:04 AM
- 606 Views
No, the courts exist to interpret legislation, and the SCOTUS to strike down illegal legislation.
14/12/2010 04:36:59 AM
- 625 Views
I'll excerpt some relevant passages, but the full article is in the link.
14/12/2010 02:10:48 PM
- 795 Views
He partially owns the lobby aiming to make it unconstitutional, which the plaintiff was a client of *NM*
14/12/2010 05:35:21 PM
- 335 Views