Read the article: Tax law could hinder quick Supreme Court decision on healthcare mandate

(via FIRM)

On August 12, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the insurance mandate in the “Obamacare” health control law is unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the mandate exceeded Congress’s Commerce Power, and was not a “tax” under Congress’s Taxation Power. …

Some of the Court’s discussion suggests that an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed by us at the Independence Institute may have influenced how the judges reached their decision. …

But first, here are some basic facts about the ruling: …

Read the whole post: Yet Another Court Voids Obamacare’s Insurance Mandates.

When the PPACA was moving through Congress, there was a lot of bluster from proponents of the law, who insisted that there were absolutely no potential constitutional problems. Most famously, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scoffed “Are you serious?” to a journalist’s question about the law’s constitutionality.

As it turns out, there are a lot of serious questions.

via Opinion: Affordable Care Act pushes limits of constitutionality | Health Policy Solutions.

The good news, for the government lawyers who on Wednesday defended ObamaCare against a constitutional challenge brought by 26 states, is that the judges of the Atlanta appeals court asked no questions about broccoli. But their good luck appears to have ended there. The three judges who heard the Obama administration’s legal justification for the individual mandate peppered acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal with obviously unsympathetic questions about the government’s claim that Congress has the power to order Americans to buy products from private corporations. Katyal, who was assigned the task of defending this proposition by Elena Kagan before she became a Supreme Court justice, produced the familiar administration arguments about the need to force everyone into the system if it is to work. …

Assuming the high court deigns to hear the case, it will end up being argued and decided in the midst of the 2012 election cycle. Further complicating matters is the awkward reality that one of the Supreme Court justices, Elena Kagan, was obviously involved in orchestrating the legal defense of ObamaCare. Thus, there will be legitimate calls for her to recuse herself from any case involving that law.

Read the whole article: Obamacare Has Another Rough Day in Court.

(Via FIRM)

The federal appellate court in Atlanta will hear arguments today on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), including the government’s latest position that the law doesn’t really require people to buy health insurance at all. We have the option instead of earning less money. Not only is this bad lawyering, it’s un-American. It suggests Congress can do anything it wants to us because we always have the “opt out” of renouncing our worldly possessions and heading for the hills.

Read the whole article: White House: Buy Health Insurance or Be Poor.

It would have been better if [Federal Judge] Vinson had stuck to his original order blocking implementation [of ObamaCare].  Yet he made clear that one of the reasons he did not is that many of the states asking him to strike down the law are implementing it anyway.

It’s Official: Governors Implementing ObamaCare Are Undermining the Lawsuits | Cato @ Liberty.

Via Tim Lynch at Cato-at-Liberty.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers comments on Mike Rosen’s show, Tuesday Feb 1:

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Dave Kopel writes:

The mandate is not severable from the health control act. Defendants themselves have argued forcefully that the mandate is absolutely essential to the entire regulatory scheme. There is no severability clause. The mandate is tightly integrated into the entire act. …

The entire act is declared void. According to Cato’s Ilya Shapiro, this means that the federal government (presuming that it will obey the law) must immediately stop enforcing the entire health control law. Of course the 11th Circuit might grant a stay, and Judge Vinson might also do so, but as of right now, there is no stay.

Kopel’s whole post: Judge Vinson rules federal health control unconstitutional.

See also:

• The Nuts and Bolts of the ObamaCare Ruling, by Randy E. Barnett and Elizabeth Price Foley in the Wall Street Journal.
• Florida Ruling Goes Further than Any Obamacare Court Decision to Date, by Grace-Marie Turner.
• Judge Vinson’s ruling.

A Virginia judge just ruled against ObamaCare‘s individual mandate [HR 3590], saying that the Constitution’s Commerce Power does not justify Congress regulating economic inactivity. Professor Rob Natelson and Research Director Dave Kopel give their comments on the court’s ruling and what that means for AG Suther’s case.

Hosted by the one and only Justin Longo.

Listen:

Download mp3.

See also Pro-liberty reactions to Virginia health care lawsuit (Cuccinelli-v-Sebelius).

Key points, by Dave Kopel.

From the Cato Institute:

• “Yes, Virginia, There Are Limits on Federal Power,” by Ilya Shapiro
• “Federal Court Declares ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Unconstitutional,” by Michael F. Cannon
• “ObamaCare Comes Up against the Constitution,” by Roger Pilon
• Cato’s Amicus Brief
• All Cato posts on Cuccinelli-v-Sebelius, including most recent.

The Problem With Broad Definitions, by Ilya Somin at The New York Times on-line

A Noxious Commandment, by Randy Barnett at The New York Times on-line.

From Reason Magazine:

• Judge: Health Care Lawsuit Is “about an individual’s right to choose.”, by Peter Suderman
• The Crucial Role of Choice in Henry Hudson’s Opinion, by Jacob Sullum

From National Review’s Critical Condition:

• Virginia v. Sebelius: There Is No Easy Way Out for Obama, by Paul Howard
• Obamacare: Now Legally as Well as Politically Unstable, by James C. Capretta
• Obamacare Is Unconstitutional. by Grace-Marie Turner