The Tenther Grapevine
Victory! Hooray! Jump for Joy!
Those are the emails and blog posts that I’ve been reading from conservatives – exuberant about the ruling from Judge Vinson in Florida today.
As an opponent of the patient protection and affordable care act, I disagree with the happy thoughts – and am wary of the trojan horse that this and other rulings appear to be.
Here’s why – from Judge Vinson himself:
“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here,” [emphasis added]
In short? According to Vinson – and just about everyone else in the federal judiciary – the federal government does have authority to control, reform, and regulate the health care industry…they’re just going about it wrong.
This is seriously dangerous for those who believe that the founders’ constitution needs to be followed: every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.
The feds are authorized to make commerce in health care (across state lines, that is) “regular” – that’s for sure. But this power is far less than anything that’s been proposed by either political party in….well, probably about forever.
Another option for people wishing for just a little decentralized freedom? State nullification of the federal health care law – every single word of it, as it should be.
UPDATE: Judge Napolitano has some excellent insight in the video below. A few points –
a) there’s no injunction, so absolutely nothing will change as far as federal enforcement.
b) much of the nasty stuff of the unconstitutional act will be enforced right now
c) the supremes likely will not even hear this case for another 3 years.
d) the result? My opinion – many opponents will sit back, breathe a sigh of relief, and stop their resistance because they believe the courts are protecting them.
Trojan horse is what I call it.
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin - and visit his personal blog - www.michaelboldin.com
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
If when Judge Vinson said, "..without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market.", he meant what you wrote -- that, "The feds are authorized to make commerce in health care (across state lines, that is) 'regular'", then OK. It would also seem that Congress would have the authority to repeal federal statutes that restrict entry into the practice of medicine. But either way, states don't need no stinking permission to reject unconstitutional regulations.
Its better than nothing....
It's better than nothing at the mere moment, Philo, but I have to agree with the article that the overall reasoning here is very troubling. I'd like to see an angle where we declare that NO government agency at any level has such regulatory power, unless the judge meant some umbrella of protection like setting certain groundrules as it does in many other kinds of businesses where there are transactions across state lines. This is inevitable.
After all, the conservative proposals involve expanding the competition of health care insurance providers via exactly the mode of customers purchasing such across state lines, something which has been restricted, for the most part, for most people.
Sure, maybe, but the bar is pretty low there....
In some ways, I think it actually is worse than nothing - I mentioned why in a brief update to the post above...
From the decision: "Declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court. " It sounds like they will have to stop implementation now, which is certainly a good thing. Definitely agree about the judges creepy remarks on the idea that Leviathan has the authority to regulate healthcare though.
Great insights Mike. Thanks
Tenther Radio Archives
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Michael, I share your concern here. Conservatives celebrated the "victory" but was it really as big as we'd like? Not in my view either. Making "regular" and "regulation" are two very different notions in the exercise of federal power. People’s jubilation shows that we have a very long way to go in our understanding the limits of federal power.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like