Free Republic

The battle to repeal President Barack Obama's national health care reform law found an ally this week in state Assemblywoman Alison McHose, R-Sussex. Calling the law unconstitutional, McHose introduced a bill, A4155, on Monday that would make it a criminal offense in the state to enforce the requirements mandated in the 2010 U.S. healthcare reform law, which includes requiring all Americans to buy some form of health insurance by 2014. But experts, fellow legislators and political opponents said it's unlikely the bill is going anywhere. According to Lou Crescitelli, a spokesperson for McHose's office, the assemblywoman drafted the bill to...

 On June 16 the U.S. Supreme Court sent a case (U.S. v. Bond) back to a lower court on Tenth Amendment grounds. The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy (the Court's "swing vote"), hints that ObamaCare just might be ruled unconstitutional. How? Justice Kennedy's opinion in U.S. v. Bond showed he still believes the federal government is restricted by the enumerated powers as listed in the U.S. Constitution. His viewpoint was expressed in a case the Lifetime network is probably making a movie about right now.            In this case, Carol Anne Bond learned that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was...

When we first articulated ObamaCare's fundamental constitutional flaws in these pages nearly two years ago, our objections were met with derision by the law's defenders. Those who have been following the unfolding litigation are no longer laughing. Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are poised to render decisions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the coming months. Despite hundreds of briefing pages and numerous oral arguments, government lawyers have yet to address the law's most basic constitutional infirmity. Only a "general police power"—the right to enact laws alleged to be in the public interest without regard to...

Granted, granted, a tough oral argument is no guarantee of defeat, but the mere possibility of O-Care crashing and burning in the 11th Circuit is tasty enough to be blogworthy. Time magazine makes a good point: Lower-court rulings on the mandate’s constitutionality have tracked with each judge’s partisan leanings, but the 11th Circuit panel is truly bipartisan. Two of the three judges who heard arguments today were appointed to the district court by Reagan, but two of the three were elevated to the appellate court by Clinton. Given that melange of blue and red, you think famous fencesitter Anthony Kennedy...

ATLANTA (AP) - The latest round in the fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul was held Wednesday in the federal appeals court in Atlanta. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether to reverse a Florida judge's ruling that struck down the law. The judges seemed receptive to arguments from critics challenging the health reforms as unconstitutional during the three-hour hearing.

Click link, need javascript enabled

Lawyers for President Barack Obama sought on Wednesday to stave off the biggest legal challenge yet to healthcare reform, his signature domestic policy achievement. The administration presented oral arguments as it appealed a ruling by a Florida judge who declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, backing claims by 26 U.S. states that individuals cannot be required to buy health insurance. The cornerstone of the law is a provision requiring Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a fine. Opponents say that punishes inactivity and exceeds the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce.

A top Obama administration lawyer defending last year's healthcare law ran into skeptical questions Wednesday from three federal judges here, who suggested they may be ready to declare all or part of the law unconstitutional. And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government's power to force someone to buy a product. "I can't find any case like this," said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. "If we uphold this, are there any limits"...

For the third time in five weeks, the Obama administration's legal point man for defending the president’s health care overhaul will walk into a federal appellate courtroom Wednesday to defend the controversial measure as an appropriate and proper exercise of the government's power. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal has steadfastly argued the law, passed in March 2010, is a necessary and reasonable response to halt the increasing costs of medical care despite claims by 26 state governments and the largest small-business group in the nation that the law's requirements are unconstitutional. Katyal is expected to tell three judges of the...

The Sixth Circuit held oral argument yesterday in its case on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The arguments to dismiss on procedural grounds are here (30 minutes), and the arguments on the merits are here (65 minutes). I just finished listening to the merits argument, and it was an excellent discussion for anyone who is following the mandate debate (you should start listening at the 9-minute mark). Judge Sutton’s questions to both sides were particularly penetrating.

"At stake is whether Congress is free to regulate every human activity - and I do not exaggerate"Dave RacerMay 20, 2011 Liberals fear it, conservatives hope the Supreme Court upholds it. Judge Roger Vinson's ruling on the Affordable Care Act of 2010, along with the others that have cleared District Court (or will) are sure to end up at the Supreme Court.  Very few people have actually read the decision. If I could "mandate" that all Americans read this decision, Americans would come to understand the profound issues it raises. For at stake is whether Congress is free to regulate...

From the homepage, click "Oral Argument Audio Files On Internet as of May 11 Session." Then pick which of the two cases you want to hear, and it will open up a mp3 file. The panel is 2 Obama appointees and 1 Clinton appointee, so it's a near certainty that the plaintiffs (the party against ObamaCare) will lose. To get a re-hearing en banc (a hearing by all 4th circuit judges), you need the votes of a majority of the 4th Circuit. Given that all the Dem appointees will vote against it (because they will have got their desire result),...

A three-judge federal appeals panel comprised of two Obama nominees and a Clinton nominee will hear arguments later this morning in two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the national health care law. The makeup of the U.S. Fourth Circuit of Appeals panel is crucial, because in lower court rulings so far, Democratic judges have upheld the law while Republican judges have declared it unconstitutional. The judges on the panel will be Obama nominees James A. Wynn, Jr and Andre M. Davis, who will sit on the panel along with Clinton nominee Diana Gribbon Motz.

Congress may be focused on raising the debt limit, but Americans know the real issue is government's out-of-control spending. Increasing the legal limit for how much the government can borrow isn't even a band-aid for our fiscal problems. Some may argue that it's necessary to keep the markets functioning, but they won't function for long if the government keeps spending trillions more than it takes in. Where to start for cutting government spending? Here's a candidate: How about we postpone implementing expensive new laws that may be unconstitutional and ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court? That seems like it...

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | When the Supreme Court considers whether Congress has the constitutional power to compel individuals to buy health insurance, the argument supporting Congress may rest on a non sequitur and a semantic fiat. A judge's recent ruling argues that the insurance mandate must be constitutional because Obamacare would collapse without it. A forthcoming law review article agrees with this and with the judge's idea that, regarding commerce, being inactive is an activity. Obamacare does indeed require the mandate: Because the law requires insurance companies to sell coverage to people regardless of their preexisting conditions, many people might delay buying...

Florida judge Robert Vinson recently ruled on the 26 state lawsuit against ObamaCare and found the law's individual mandate to buy health insurance unconstitutional. Critically, he also ruled that, in the absence of a severability clause and the centrality of the mandate to the law, it is void in its entirety. If the GOP is smart, they will use the arguments outlined in Vinson’s ruling to appeal to the American people’s common sense and demonstrate the exact insanity of Democrats' overreach with ObamaCare. For example, they should liberally quote his statement that if the law’s individual mandate is upheld, then...

When the national health care law now known as ObamaCare passed into law on March 23, 2010, few foresaw the immediate effect it would have on the country. One who did was constitutional scholar David B. Rivkin Jr., the lawyer who led 26 state plaintiffs and the National Federation of Independent Business in a successful Florida lawsuit that found the law unconstitutional. In conjunction with the one-year anniversary of the House passing the law, the Cato Institute is holding a special half-day conference in Washington, D.C. on Monday, March 21, 2011 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. to look at...

Obamacare is living on borrowed time, and even its most ardent supporters are beginning to realize it. That’s why they’re racing to implement - and entrench - as much of the plan as possible before the laws of economics and the laws of the land and voters catch up. They’re like a deadbeat renter starting a remodeling project after being evicted but before the police escort them from the premises in hopes that it gives them squatter’s rights. Meanwhile, two unrelated but devastating events have caused the ground to shake beneath the feet of Obamacare supporters. A major component of...

(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge in Florida, clearly annoyed by the Justice Department's request for "clarification" of his ruling that the new health care law is unconstitutional, on Thursday granted a stay of his February ruling -- but only if the government files an appeal seeking an expedited review of that ruling, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court, within 7 days. Judge Roger Vinson noted that the Obama administration has had more than a month to file an appeal and has not yet done so. "It should not be at all difficult or challenging to...

Roger Vinson, the U.S. federal judge who ruled Obamacare unconstitutional in its entirety, has ruled again on the health-care law. On Thursday, Judge Vinson issued a stay on his earlier ruling that the law could not be enforced. In doing so, he sent a clear message to the Obama administration: Appeal my decision to a higher court or stop implementing the law. When Judge Vinson ruled on Jan. 31 that the health-care law was unconstitutional, the administration followed up by filing a motion for clarification rather than filing an official appeal. Vinson’s ruling criticized the administration for that action. “During...