Federal Judge: Obama's Health Reform Partly Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Virginia has found that part of President Obama's health care reform is unconstitutional. CNN reports, "U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson struck down the 'individual mandate' requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014, "An individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline purchase -- (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach [of the Constitution]. No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance." (link to ruling)The Justice Department is expected to appeal the ruling.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on December 13, 2010 12:59 PM

Comments [rss]

Sulayman

As DailyKos says:

It's important to emphasize that while the right will make much of this ruling, the ruling only directly impacts this one case -- it does not create precedent. Moreover, the individual mandate has not yet been imposed, so there will be plenty of time for higher courts to review the ruling. As a Republican appointee of George W. Bush, Judge Hudson's ruling doesn't come as a big surprise, though health care reform critics will no doubt treat it as a major victory.

S.D.

Hm. Need to read the ruling, but isn't the Federal Gov't allowed to tax people? How is this different?

yincrash

taxing is the constitution and mandating payment to private entities is not?

S.D.

Ignoring that Taxes is Mandated payments.

yincrash

i'm not ignoring that at all. I believe you're ignoring that taxing refers to mandated payment to the government which is very different than mandated payment to a private entity.

starrygordon

This is something that occurred to me when I first heard about the mandated insurance payments. There is nothing in the Constitution which remotely gives the power to the Federal government to compel payments from one private party to another. Single Payer would have been constitutional (general welfare), but the mandates are not.

S.D.

@yincrach and starrygordon: Well, federal mandates have been upheld before, granted on a state level.

To further complicate this, other similar legal challenges to this bill have been upheld in federal court.

I'm betting it goes to the Supreme Court and, IMO, the conservatives vote against it.