Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

Reuters ^ | 8/12/11 | Reuters

[Keith in Iowa]

An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House. The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect. The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

[Keith in Iowa]

Wooo Hooo!!!

[americanophile]

;) 10 seconds.

[Free America52]

Obama’s month of August just got a little worse.

[Republic]

Oh my gosh Keith, that is great news. Chalk one up for some sanity rearing its sorely missed head.

[edcoil]

The political left and this president don’t care what the law is.

[Perdogg]

How can the rest of the law remain in effect since it did not have a Severability Clause? ?

[Mount Athos]

Exactly what i’m wondering, makes no sense

[wmfights]

How can they rule the balance of the law remains in effect? My understanding is the law was written without a severability(?) clause.

[CSM]

I will celebrate, but will still mourn that this is even a discussion in our once great Republic.

[null and void]

Duplicate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2762794/posts

[wiggen]

Sucks. They say the rest can stay. They are saying that severabilty clause is implied even if not specifically written.

[Cicero]

Despite the headline, it’s not good news as long as they ignore the problem of no severability clause.

[Art in Idaho]

Great news! So, does it even have to go to SCOTUS if yet another Judge says it's unconstitutional? Is it time to call the hearse? . . or is it yet another 'not so fast'? . .

[xzins]

Same thing I was thinking. How can you dry up the funding, but say the rest is still in effect, and especially when the law itself disallows severability?

[GlockThe Vote]

Without the mandate - the rest falls apart like a house of cards.

Everyone knows this.

[American Quilter]

How can the rest of the law remain in effect since it did not have a Severability Clause?

It can't, but everyone here knows that Obama and his orcs are not concerned about the law. If they can get away with illegality, they will. Fortunately, without the individual mandate, Obamacare will collapse of its own accord, since it will never have even half of the money it needs to fund it.

[RightFighter]

I’ll let you all in on a little secret.....

Obama would PREFER that the mandate be struck down. He can’t say that, but if he can get the mandate struck down with the rest of the law intact, then he knows that will completely destroy the private healthcare market in this country. Then there will be no alternative but for single-payer.

[Keith in Iowa]

>>>So, does it even have to go to SCOTUS if yet another Judge says it’s unconstitutional?

I think it pretty much has to due to the conflict in the two rulings - not a given, but highly likely.

[MestaMachine]

WooHoo is right. Oh boy. This is turning out to be the *wonderfullest* day for a long time!

[Madame Dufarge]

The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

This is like cats professing insight into the lives of dogs.