Another judge has ruled that the individual mandate under Obamacare is unconstitutional. From the story:
President Obama’s plan to require individual Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty exceeds the powers granted both the president and Congress by the Constitution, a federal district court judge ruled Tuesday in Harrisburg Federal District Judge Christopher C. Connor said the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce does not give it the power to compel individual citizens to purchase products against their will. “The nation undoubtably faces a health-care crisis,” Conner said. “Scores of individuals are uninsured and the costs to all citizens are measurable and significant. “The federal government, however, is one of limited enumerated powers,” Conner continued, “and Congress’ efforts to remedy the ailing health care and health insurance markets must fit squarely within the boundaries of those powers.”
The lawsuit was brought by a married couple in York County who sued Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is overseeing the health-care plan, to overturn the law. The couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman and her husband, Gregory Bachman, said they had dropped their own health coverage because it exceeded the cost of their mortgage payments. They said they preferred to pay for their health care out of pocket.
Why shouldn’t that be their right? I am not sure why the couple has standing and Liberty University’s case was dismissed for lack of standing, but here we are.
This seems pretty momentous:
While most of the massive law can remain intact, Conner said, certain provisions are linked to the health insurance requirement and must also be struck down. Those provisions are designed to guarantee that insurance companies cannot discriminate against or deny coverage to the sick or people with pre-existing conditions.
Wow. When I get a chance, I’ll have to look at the case to see what that is all about.
This is good because it is another substantive constitutional blow against this misbegotten law. My only fear is that it could be used as an excuse to delay consideration by the Supreme Court. Since there are already two circuits in conflict on the issue, I hope the case is joined with the others and taken right to the SCOTUS.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
