- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
- Grass-Whopper: Pan-fried cricket burgers go over big in New York City
Appeals court upholds Obama’s health care law
In a frank ruling upholding President Obama’s new health care law, a federal appeals court said Tuesday the individual mandate requiring all Americans to buy health insurance encroaches on individual liberty, but is still constitutional because it allows the government to solve a national problem.
In a 2-1 ruling that delivered a victory to the White House, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia became the second appellate panel to uphold the individual mandate. Judge Laurence H. Silberman said requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is no different than other obligations the government imposes, such as requiring businesses to serve all customers regardless of race.
“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local — or seemingly passive — their individual origins,” Judge Silberman wrote in the majority opinion.
Brought by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a Christian legal group, the case involved five plaintiffs who said they could face thousands of dollars in fines for failing to purchase health insurance. They also argued that the mandate violated their religious freedom.
“We still remain confident that Obamacare and the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance, is the wrong prescription for America and ultimately will be struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
At issue is whether the individual mandate falls under a clause in the Constitution allowing Congress to regulate commerce between the states. Supporters say the mandate falls within appropriate bounds because everyone requires health care at some point in their lives — thus requiring someone to pay for it.
But opponents charge that Congress exceeded its authority in passing the mandate, and that if allowed to stand, there will be no limit to what Americans may be required to buy.
Judge Harry T. Edwards agreed with Judge Silberman, who wrote that the apparent absence of a limit on Congress‘ ability to require Americans to purchase any product or service was “troubling, but not fatal.”
“The health insurance market is a rather unique one, both because virtually everyone will enter or affect it, and because the uninsured inflict a disproportionate harm on the rest of the market as a result of their later consumption of health care service,” Judge Silberman wrote.
Randy Barnett, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, called it the “most ambitious, the most far-reaching claim of federal power” decision of any court to rule on the individual mandate so far.
“It yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems,” Mr. Barnett said. “[The Founders] declined to put something like that in the Constitution cause it was proposed at the Constitutional Convention, and they didn’t put it on there. That’s a huge deal.”
The lower court rulings likely will be considered by the Supreme Court next year, when it is expected to take up the challenges to the Affordable Care Act.
With the decision by the D.C. Circuit, and a similar decision by the 6th Circuit in June, appeals courts have ruled 2-1 in favor of the individual mandate. The 11th Circuit struck the individual mandate down in August, but upheld the rest of the law.
Three other appeals courts have said challenges are outside their jurisdiction.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- A familiar fading feeling for McMahon in Connecticut
- Romney’s bid to undo health law faces hurdles
- Hill GOP presses Medicare probe
- Romney, Obama advisors butt heads over binders, Big Bird and “Romnesia”
- Outsiders abide by rules in Brown-Warren race
Latest Blog Entries
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- MILLER: Obamacare enrollees include 101 members of the House of Representatives
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Obama downplays IRS scandal, blames Obamacare rollout on 'outdated' agencies
- 'Hunger Games' delivers Obama's message on income inequality
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
A politically conservative and morally liberal Hebrew alpha male hunts left-wing viper
This column will cover anything that has anything remotely to do with the game of baseball, from the game itself to mid-summer trades to offseason moves.
Entertainment News and Reviews from Washington, D.C. and beyond.
Political satirist and Christian apologist Bob Siegel discusses religion and politics.
White House pets gone wild!