US

Federal Appeals Court Rules: Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional

Individual Mandate Ruled Unconstitutional by Appeals CourtATLANTA (The Blaze/AP) — A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

(More: Read about the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling on a liberal Obamacare lawsuit)

The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn’t go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics argued the law violates people’s rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a “quintessential” power.

The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull (a female), found that “the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power.”

“What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” the opinion said.

Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent.

The 11th Circuit isn’t the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government’s new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.

But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ coverage.

The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson’s ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that “would imperil individual liberty, render Congress’s other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states.”

The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its “quintessential” rights when it adopted the new law.

During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.

The arguments unfolded in what‘s considered one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.

Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he‘s been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter’s outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.

Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court. But Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami’s lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.

According to New York Magazine, Hull “becomes the first Democratically appointed judge to rule against health-care reform since challenges to the legislation began.”

This is a breaking story. Updates will be added.

Comments (307)

1 2 3 ... 7
  • ThunderboltP47
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:54pm

    Repeal OBAMA in 2012

    Report Post » ThunderboltP47  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:12pm

      Most of what Obama has done is unconstitutional. Repeal everything he did in 2012, if we make it to then. Thats what Newt said he would do!!

      Report Post » NHwinter  
    • MrWill
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:13pm

      Do you mean: Hope for Change?

      Report Post » MrWill  
    • Sleazy Hippo
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:17pm

      You have to hand it to our duly elected President for being a leader, even though some of us do not appreciate what he tries to do, you have to admit it takes courage and vision to change things like he has.

      Sleazy Hippo  
    • Mia Cav
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:25pm

      @ Sleazy Hippo: Courage? Really? Vision? Really? He is a Progressive following the plan laid out for him 100 years ago. Have you read _The Roots of Obama’s Rage_? It explains it all. He is an anticolonialist, progressive, Marxist and his “vision” is to bring this country down! Go back to HuffPo!

      Report Post »  
    • GulfPeg
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:26pm

      This is for “SLEAZY HIPPO”. Cramming things down people’s throats does not require courage, nor vision, only a degree from Harvard in “bullying” is what Obama has.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:33pm

      The President tried to force unconstitutional legislation on American…he signed it thus committing an UnConstitutional act…let the impeachment start

      Report Post »  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:35pm

      @SLEAZY

      Umm no. It takes vision and courage to be outspoken about what you believe in and take that message to the people because you believe in it. It doesn‘t take vision and courage to use scare tactics telling people that the Nazis are coming to kill their grandmother if they don’t go along with him. It doesn’t take vision and courage to bypass the constitution and abuse powers that were clearly enumerated for other purposes. In fact that’s the exact opposite of vision and courage. It’s lunacy and spinelessness. This is the first president I can honestly say I believe is a legitimate criminal, and I don’t mean that figuratively.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:36pm

      Hey sleazy the same things could have been said about Hitler.
      What Obama has done and is still trying to do is Stomp on the CONSTITUTION
      The only thing anyone should hand him is his walking paper in the form of an IMPEACHMENT

      Report Post »  
    • jackbauer2012
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:41pm

      Apparently there are a few people here who don’t understand sarcasm

      Report Post »  
    • chazman
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:05pm

      … the Federal Government has truly become the enemy of the American people …

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:11pm

      The Healthcare Law is the only thing Obama has done that he could really lay any claim to. It was obvious that the Law was for no other purpose than to shove the United States into Socialism even further. His Progressive Caucus friend and ally, Hillary Clinton had failed, where Obama was able to strong arm the Law through.

      By unraveling that junk legislation Obama has proven to be even weaker than Clinton, and has nothing to hang his hat on by the ruling that most, if not all of it, is in fact, illegal, and un-Constitutional.

      This is a GREAT day to be an American!

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Corco
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:15pm

      Watch this Radio interview of how then Senator Obama talks about his “Redistribution of Wealth”. Where was this audio when he ran for president?

      http://youtu.be/iivL4c_3pck – Chicago Public Radio interview – 2001

      Report Post »  
    • Sleazy Hippo
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:18pm

      It seems that no matter what the President signed, there would have been deep rooted opposition.

      So maybe he was just “ramming the bill down our throats” for 18 months, maybe it was NOT courageous to face down a huge opposition party day after day – because they said no, voted no, and proved day by day they would not support him at all. Never. No matter what.

      And that was Before the TEA party was powerful.

      Report Post » Sleazy Hippo  
    • Marci
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:43pm

      What I don‘t like about their decision and how it’s worded:

      “What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” the opinion said.

      *******
      No problem for Obama, he will ensure that you no longer HAVE to purchase it through a private company. How simple is that? Why would they word it this way??? Obama studied the constitution and law to MANIPULATE it, not uphold it.

      Report Post » Marci  
    • ramburner
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:57pm

      Obama is unconstitutional! He needs to be thrown out of office and tried for treason for bypassing the Constitutional form of government. He was elected to represent the people and uphold the Constitution; he has done neither!

      Report Post »  
    • the hawk
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:07pm

      The bill violates equal protection in constition! Or there would need no Wavers !

      Report Post »  
    • jnobfan
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:41pm

      Good and bad news here. Letting the rest of Obamacare stand is quite bad. They can always work around the manditory payment inclusion and I’m sure they never really exspected that to become law anyway. Like Beck says “watch the other hand” this bunch has been working on this for decades. I’m pretty sure they have this thought out.

      Report Post »  
    • tifosa
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:47pm

      This ruling appears to be saying that they found the individual mandate to be uc, the rest appears ok.

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • tifosa
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:59pm

      on to the 4th Crct Ct of Appeals

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 5:10pm

      jnobfan
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:41pm

      Good and bad news here. Letting the rest of Obamacare stand is quite bad. They can always work around the manditory payment inclusion and I’m sure they never really exspected that to become law anyway. Like Beck says “watch the other hand” this bunch has been working on this for decades. I’m pretty sure they have this thought out.
      ————————————————————————————————————————————
      Yes and no. This suit was specifically addressing the Mandate portion of the law. Once the Mandate is striped the teeth of the Law are left with a mouth that’s gaping open. It would be great to instantly abolish the Law, but in reality that simply opens up it rearing its ugly head down the road. Take it apart piece by piece and set the precedents that make it impossible to reconstruct the Law in any socialist form.

      Constitutional Lawyers, of which Obama claims to be, but is not, are attacking this Law brilliantly.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Pujols
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 5:58pm

      That black Kid should go into The Sign making business.
      That’s the best one I even made seen from a little Kid.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:39pm

      ^^^ Man enough to admit to being wrong.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • avenger
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:54pm

      impeach obummer now !

      Report Post »  
    • Secret Squirrel
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:55pm

      .
      Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
      deserves a lot of credit. She is a goddess.

      Report Post » Secret Squirrel  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 7:05pm

      Secret Squirrel
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:55pm

      .
      Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi
      deserves a lot of credit. She is a goddess.
      ——————————————————————————————————————————————-
      Don’t know about the Goddess part, but she is definitely a brilliant “lady” who has her priorities firmly planted on the side of Americans who 100% support the Constitution.

      Love her like a sister.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:26pm

      @tifosa
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:47pm

      This ruling appears to be saying that they found the individual mandate to be uc, the rest appears ok.
      ——————————————————————————————————————————————-
      No, that’s no correct. The Federal Government turned this into an Interstate Commerce issue when they introduced taxes in the conversation. The Mandate would make it Universally spread across every US Citizen. The Mandate effectively frees 26 of the 50 States from obligation to pay a tax (buying their death doctor healthcare scheme), while telling the other 24 States they must. That’s, um, illegal! A State may write Laws regarding it’s own citizens, but the Federal Government doesn’t get that option.

      Without the Mandate, funding that pile of worthless paper Law IS DEAD!.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:49pm

      There is one of the Founding ideals which defines just why this HealthCare Law is wrong, immoral, and illegal.

      “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

      Thank you Mr. Jefferson, I could not have worded it better. This Law is tyrannical, that makes it’s author a tyrant. What other words does Jefferson aim directly at the tyrant currently in the White House?

      He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: (From the Declaration of Independence).

      I love me some Tommy J and the Founders. They’re even better than the Chi-Lites!

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • banjarmon
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:57pm

      This is like line item veto by the courts….If the potus can’t do how can the court? IT SHOULD BE ALL OR NOTHING. THE COURT RULED PART IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,… THEN ALL of IT SHOULD BE.

      Report Post » banjarmon  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 11:24pm

      @banjarmon
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:57pm

      This is like line item veto by the courts….If the potus can’t do how can the court? IT SHOULD BE ALL OR NOTHING. THE COURT RULED PART IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,… THEN ALL of IT SHOULD BE.
      ——————————————————————————————————————————————
      Because it’s not illegal to craft legislation that is a multi faceted doctrine. This is what’s so beautiful about the way real Constitutional Lawyers have gone after this Law. They have aimed at specific elements that sufficiently yanks the teeth out of even being able to implement it. If people aren’t forced by mandate to pay a “tax”, the entire Law is dead. But even in effectively killing the law, they have allowed sections of it to persist. Those remaining elements are striped of the cover of the Constitution and the anti HealthCare Law Constitutional Lawyers will attack each remaining portion of the Law to create PRECEDENT that Judges, if they are ever faced by such a radical attempt at writing Law again, will have a road map to guide them into rendering Constitutionally accurate opinion.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • banjarmon
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 12:21am

      @ The10thAmendment
      Thank you for your knowledge

      Report Post » banjarmon  
    • Thatsitivehadenough
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 5:29am

      To fully understand Obama and his ‘progressive’ base, one NEEDS to read “Radical-In-Chief” by Stanley Kurtz, watch Charlotte Iserbyt: Societies Secrets on YouTube (and other interviews with her also found on YT).

      Obama hasn’t achieved what he has, insofar as bringing down the USA, on his own. He is merely the current leading man in an evil plot hatched decades ago and being played out ever more quickly in recent years. The USA has been infiltrated and undermined by such extreme leftists who have infiltrated our entire government, education system, and the media. Don’t you ever wonder why so many of them came out of Yale, Princeton, and U of Chicago? Red diaper babies have been trained from birth to hate everything America stands for. And they have been training and indoctrinating generations that have been born since.

      Report Post » Thatsitivehadenough  
    • tifosa
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:18am

      10TH, Look below, there are alternatives to the individual mandates IF they don’t survive. I think there’s a case to be made for their survival, but ya know…just in case :^)

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • tifosa
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:26am

      Individual mandates are not unprecedented AND in the 90′s, when the Republicans came up with the idea in the first place, THEY didn’t consider i.m.’s unconstitutional.

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:18am

      @tifosa
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:18am

      10TH, Look below, there are alternatives to the individual mandates IF they don’t survive. I think there’s a case to be made for their survival, but ya know…just in case :^)
      —————————————————————————————————————————————–
      There are no alternatives below. What resides below the individual mandate is a toothless stack of legislation that has no funding because the tax cannot be levied to force people to buy a particular product. The Federal Government sponsored HealthCare cannot proceed, and it allows Congress to cut off any and all funding based on no new revenue for its operation.

      That doesn’t mean that STATES cannot borrow portions of the legislation to work into their constituents version. It would, and will require the States to offer the “proposal” as a ballot initiative for any portion of the legislation to find a home.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 9:28am

      @tifosa
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:26am

      Individual mandates are not unprecedented AND in the 90′s, when the Republicans came up with the idea in the first place, THEY didn’t consider i.m.’s unconstitutional.
      ———————————————————————————————————————————————-
      State’s can certainly issue individual mandates. If your thinking on this is similar in action to say, auto insurance your point is flawed. Every State has a different criteria for what’s required (roadways are generally built by government funding). Generally auto insurance might have the interest of the policy owner in mind, but the mandate to have it, is to protect the other guy, and others’ property against accidents or willful neglect. It’s not REMOTELY similar to ObamaCare in any fashion. There’s nothing Liberty killing in that. ObamaCare forces me to insure myself, against myself, and allows the government to make my decisions for me. That in every definition is tyranny and a direct assault on the rights guaranteed by the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and prevents the governments restrictive nature by the Constitution.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • tifosa
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:48am

      No, i’m thinking registering for selective service, jury duty..

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 12:17pm

      tifosa
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:48am

      No, i’m thinking registering for selective service, jury duty..
      ————————————————————————————————————————————————
      The selective service act (in my opinion, even though it’s defunct) has a legitimate functionality, and practicality. The Nation must be able to call on its citizens to defend their own land. Although there is no draft, and there is little to no chance of the Selective Service Act to be reinstated. Unless there is a compelling reason (and no, a war with Iran wouldn’t necessitate it) to re institute the draft there’s not a politician in America who would try to wield those powers. It would be suicidal. If you need citations for the many forms selective service has taken, I will be most glad to provide the links.

      Jury duty is proper. Why? Because in a Constitutionally Represented Republic, it is the PEOPLE who write the laws. Without Jurors from among the people, Judges would be free to render opinion which is contrary to the will of the people. In other words, be tyrants without a stay on their authority.

      To remain free of tyranny the people must be at the fore of both defending with our mind (jury duty) and our body (defense of the Nation against foreign and domestic oppression). Not only are these Constitutional, it is required in a Republic where people govern themselves.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 12:55pm

      @tifosa
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 10:48am

      No, i’m thinking jury duty..
      —————————————————————————————————————————————
      Constitutionality of jury duty can be located in Article 3 section 2 of the Constitution, as well as the 6th Amendment.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
  • Hex_Omega
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:52pm

    It’s been a great couple of weeks for the Un-Commander In Chief, hasn’t it? This is EXCELLENT news for Americans!

    Report Post » Hex_Omega  
    • AzDebi
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:55pm

      Yes…

      Report Post » AzDebi  
    • MisterHomebiz
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:57pm

      My biggest concern as a business owner is the requirement for me to buy health insurance for my employees or pay a $2,000 annual penalty per employee. I already offer a 50% match on a group plan, which only a handful take. This new requirement, coming down in 2014, will close my business.

      Report Post » MisterHomebiz  
    • kindling
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:00pm

      Doesn’t this mean if part of the law is out the whole thing is out? No more Obamacare! I think it is written so that parts cannot be taken out…..I sure hope that is true.

      Report Post » kindling  
    • Sleazy Hippo
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:20pm

      First, they did not shut down anything, The part of the family of laws in the Act they are referring to is not yet in effect.

      Secondly, If there is an appeal, everything goes to a higher court where another decision cycle will be conducted.

      Report Post » Sleazy Hippo  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:47pm

      Hey dirtee fata55,(I MEAN SLEAZY HIPPO)
      There is no provision in commiecare that would allow one part of it to be repealed without repealing all of it.
      Because Congress expressly did not put a severability clause in the legislation, the judge has ruled the whole law unconstitutional.

      Report Post »  
    • Sleazy Hippo
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:21pm

      Uh, SmithCl–

      You are incorrect, Sorry.

      Report Post » Sleazy Hippo  
    • Living In NYC
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:10pm

      All I can say is “Ding, Dong the Witch and Warlock are Dying”!

      The Nightmare of O Land is almost over and we can get back to Kansas…

      Give me a Big Mac Meal and Super-Size it! Personal Choice is back in American as well as the “Land of the Free and Brave”….Not the “O Land of freeloaders and regulation”!

      Report Post » Living In NYC  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 5:24pm

      Yes tifosa, all is lost.

      You lost last November.

      You lost in Wisconsin.

      You will lose in Ohio.

      You will lose next November.

      When all is said and done, you are a loser.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 5:35pm

      @tifosa

      But don’t worry, JZS will be along shortly to tell you he thinks you must be smart, and educated.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • tifosa
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:40pm

      Awww Billy, no need for the sloppysweetstuff. Clearly you are the brightest bulb in the chandelier :^)

      Report Post » tifosa  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 7:19pm

      smithclar3nc3
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:47pm

      Hey dirtee fata55,(I MEAN SLEAZY HIPPO)
      There is no provision in commiecare that would allow one part of it to be repealed without repealing all of it.
      Because Congress expressly did not put a severability clause in the legislation, the judge has ruled the whole law unconstitutional.
      ———————————————————————————————————————————
      Hippo is correct, almost entirely on this. The Law is written in sections. One section “could” be perfectly legal, while other sections ruled Un-Constitutional. The Individual Mandate is a separate issue aside from what the Federal Government can actually impose through Law of Interstate Commerce. BUT, the Individual Mandate is the basic support pillar for much of what the Law in its entirely says. That means that the idea of this Law being a Tax has been ruled Un-Constitutional.

      The part I disagree with Hippo on is the formality, or even necessity of the Supreme Court to even accept the case for redress. The SCOTUS could simply deny an appeal for them to rule. That would mean that the Appeals Court decision would be binding. That’s why every President tries to “pack the Court” in their favor. When controversial Laws are written they want “their” Court to be the final say. In this case, it’s an uphill battle for Obama.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • encinom
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 7:40pm

      The part I disagree with Hippo on is the formality, or even necessity of the Supreme Court to even accept the case for redress. The SCOTUS could simply deny an appeal for them to rule. That would mean that the Appeals Court decision would be binding. That’s why every President tries to “pack the Court” in their favor. When controversial Laws are written they want “their” Court to be the final say. In this case, it’s an uphill battle for Obama.
      _____________________________________
      It would not be binding on the nation, just the 11th Circuit, with other district courts outside of the 11th, and other circuit courts ruling their own way.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 8:56pm

      @ENCINOM – “It would not be binding on the nation, just the 11th Circuit, with other district courts outside of the 11th, and other circuit courts ruling their own way.”
      ——————————————————————————————————————————————–
      True AND false. The SCOTUS is under no obligation to give a redress of the Appellate Courts decisions. The Court striking down the Mandate clause of the Law is representing 26 States. Almost certainly other States, no matter if they are right leaning or left leaning will join that. It would become a ballot issue. Why? Because while the Mandate clause may not have been struck down in the 24 remaining States it creates a serious problem relating to Interstate Commerce associated with fair taxation across State lines. Had there been 35 States named in the Pro Repeal of the Mandate, it would have become National Law without “any” redress. But even with the 26 States named in the suit it automatically kills implementation of the HealthCare Law in its entirety.

      Individual STATES could make it a ballot issue and adopt the Federal plan into a State plan independently, as is the case with RomneyCare, but that is the only recourse option.

      The SCOTUS is under no mandate to rule beyond what the Appellate Court determines. The Appellate Court IS the Court of appeal for the Lower Courts. The SCOTUS can flip a search for an appeal to them the bird, and call it a

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 8:59pm

      ^^^ day.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • one years food ration like glenn says
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:43am

      @SECRET SQUIRREL, She’s a Godess for doing the right thing ? ppffft !!!

      Report Post » one years food ration like glenn says  
  • pap pap
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:52pm

    It’s nice to start the weekend with some good news.

    Report Post »  
    • SavingtheRepublic.com
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:17pm

      ~~^^~~^^~~
      Yes it is but lets not celebrate just yet. This WILL go to SCOTUS for the final say. I think we now have a split among all the courts hearing this that some agree and some disagree. As far as SCOTUS goes they must rule in favor of the people and the Constitution but keep in mind of the Emperors 2 appointments: Kagan and Sotomayer. There will be a fight to keep Kagan in play. We know how the other liberal Justices will rule but here is why I am responding…

      PRAY, pray for the health and security of the conservative Justices. Glenn wants prayers said for everyone else but he never says say a prayer for our conservative Justices. We cannot afford to lose any of them while Emperor Obama is in power. We all get caught up with elections etc always forgetting one of our last lines of defense in preserving the nation falls on SCOTUS’ hands! http://SavingtheRepublic.com

      Report Post » SavingtheRepublic.com  
    • agameofthrones
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:52pm

      Well the only way the Obamacare bill was passed was using budget reconcilliation to get it through. That means it had to be budget-neutral and add nothing to the Federal deficit. The only way they were going to pay for it was through the individual mandate which required every person to buy healthcare insurance or pay a fine. Now that the mandate is out, there is no way to pay for this huge monstrosity which will be very expensive. We obviously cannot afford to make it an entitlement. We couldn’t pay for it if you raised taxes on everyone to double what they pay now. It will have to go back to Congress to be passed like any other bill with a vote. There is no way it can pass since there is no way that Americans will pay for it.

      Report Post » agameofthrones  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 7:28pm

      @SavingtheRepublic.com
      —————————————————————————————————–
      You are probably right that it will wind up before the SCOTUS. That doesn’t mean that the SCOTUS is mandated to accept the case for redress. They can simply say that the Appeals Courts decision was right, and never give an appeal a day in their Court.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
  • noleftturn
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:50pm

    Constitution 1, Tyranny 0

    Report Post » noleftturn  
    • Goodgriefgeezlouise
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:13pm

      One small step for man…One giant leap for We the People!

      Report Post »  
    • Living In NYC
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:18pm

      Is does feel good to watch this dude go down in flames after forcing all the regulations on us…while we lose our jobs, the value of our homes, our country’s credit rating and our wealth in the markets.

      Report Post » Living In NYC  
  • cobra two
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:47pm

    NObama 2012

    Report Post »  
  • JJBlazeReader
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:45pm

    ..
    I thought there was no severability clause in Obamacare. If that is the case that if one part is found unconstitutional then the whole bill becomes unconstitional.

    Report Post » JJBlazeReader  
    • staci
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:49pm

      That’s what we were told. I hope it is pointed out by someone other than us.

      Report Post »  
    • palrider1
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:03pm

      @JJBLAZERREADER Unfortunately sometimes these folks make their own rules. I think, at times we have problems with our checks and balanes. Some good news, better than none.

      Report Post »  
    • AZpatriotmama
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:24pm

      If the mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the feds can’t fund the program and it will die.

      Report Post »  
    • Sleazy Hippo
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:32pm

      By the way, “unconstitutional” does not necessarily mean,.”illegal.”

      Unconstitutional means, “Not included in the constitution.“ Most of our municipal rules and regulations are technically ”unconstitutional,” especially those that deal with zoning and electronics.

      Sometimes, unconstitutional refers to “violating the limits of the constitution,“ or going ”above & beyond constitutional limits.”

      Report Post » Sleazy Hippo  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:40pm

      The mandate was supposed to be the vehicle that brought in the money to pay for Obamacare. Since that ‘vehicle’ is out, the Dems will try to come up with something else to help fund their diabolical plan. It is yet to be revealed if they have something else to replace the mandate as a fund raiser.

      But as for the mandate being struck down, YAAAAAAAA! A victory for personal freedom, (in the land of the free of all places). Now if we can just see to it that the states don’t have to spend money preparing for Obamacare in the meantime!!
      Last I heard, states and employers are still having to fund preparations for the coming of Obamacare, which is still in limbo………………waste of much needed cash for more important things!

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • Bloody Sam
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:45pm

      Vinson wrote:
      “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications”

      So this new 11th Circuit ruling affirms that Q.E.D.
      If SCOTUS upholds this ruling, ObamaCare is DOA.

      Report Post » Bloody Sam  
    • melmatmic
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:46pm

      It’s my understanding that the rest of the law depends on the individual mandate for much of its funding and therefore cannot stand on its own without the individual mandate. But as has been said here, we’ve been lied to before!!!

      Report Post » melmatmic  
    • CHEERalum
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:59pm

      @ HIPPO

      Dude – you have to stretch, twist, and spin “UN” pretty far to get that the word “UNconsitutional” doesn’t include laws that are not included in the constitution.

      If something is “UN” – unfair, unemployed, etc – it means that the opposite of the derivitive is true. Hence, unfair means that something is not fair, someone that is unemployed DOES NOT have a job. Ergo, something that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is UNauthorized or inconsistent with the Constitution.

      In other words, UNconstitutional laws are laws that conflict with provisions of the Constitution which happens to be the supreme law of the United States. If a proposed law goes against THE SUPREME LAW…its illegal.

      C’mon bro…at least put some effort into it.

      Report Post »  
    • chezhockey
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:37pm

      @ Sleazy Hippo, actually, “Unconstitutional” means “not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country.” Your incorrect definition would mean that anything not specifically included in the constitution is unconstitutional. Not the case. Of course, that’s the liberal slant, isn’t it? If it doesn’t specifically meet your needs, change it o lie about it….

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 9:11pm

      @Sleazy Hippo
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:32pm

      By the way, “unconstitutional” does not necessarily mean,.”illegal.”

      Unconstitutional means, “Not included in the constitution.“ Most of our municipal rules and regulations are technically ”unconstitutional,” especially those that deal with zoning and electronics.

      Sometimes, unconstitutional refers to “violating the limits of the constitution,“ or going ”above & beyond constitutional limits.”
      ———————————————————————————————————————————————–
      Yikes! Hippo, I have agreed with many of your points on this topic (see earlier citations where I agreed), but this one? I’m sorry my friend. If a decision is rendered that makes a Law Un-Constitutional, it is most certainly illegal regarding the Law of the Land, or, The United States of America. The Constitution measures the veracity of any Law written, and is the PEOPLES advocate for personal Liberty against tyrannical Law. Thomas Jefferson.

      “Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
  • abbygirl1994
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:45pm

    Wonderful news, but what trick does the WH have up their sleeve now!! The dictator is already in conferences whether on the phone or in a room and they are bringing forth a plan. Reid and Pelosi are steaming.. God is good and I want to tell the Apellate Courts, finally you did something where the people can say, “wow a part of the government who isn’t corrupted”! Thank You!!

    Report Post » abbygirl1994  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:46pm

      Let’s see who recuses themselves, now.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • fatjack
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 6:01pm

      abbygirl1994, excellent post.

      Report Post » fatjack  
    • one years food ration like glenn says
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 8:58am

      @SLEAZY MAGGOT.Unconstitutional means, “Not included in the constitution.“ Most of our municipal rules and regulations are technically ”unconstitutional,” especially those that deal with zoning and electronics. And you’re still a liberal and like this crap ? What is wrong with you when you know your country is forcing you into somehting , anything, that you stay on the side of just said ? I guess your one of the mental midgets that I always hear about.. Good luck with your tyranny loving ass, you’re going to need it..

      Report Post » one years food ration like glenn says  
  • Edward C
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:43pm

    Next on to the supreme court???

    Report Post »  
  • RedinLouisville
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:43pm

    Lets not forget the constitutional “genius” Obama is suppose to be. What a failure ivy league schools have become.

    Report Post » RedinLouisville  
    • Mapache
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:52pm

      Has anyone been identified from all his years teaching, either other faculty members or students, that are willing to go on camera and say he was a genius? How about anyone who would say they took his classes?

      Report Post » Mapache  
    • RedinLouisville
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:02pm

      Seems like they are keeping everything he did in college under lock and key.

      Report Post » RedinLouisville  
    • MrWill
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:18pm

      Obama is a case of Affirmative Action gone wrong..

      Report Post » MrWill  
    • Working Poor
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:27pm

      @RedinLouisville
      Lets not forget the constitutional “genius” Obama is suppose to be. What a failure ivy league schools have become.
      ______________________________________________________________

      I‘ll believe he’s ivy league educated when he shows his transcripts.

      Transparency, meh!

      Report Post » Working Poor  
    • oldjackpinesavage
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:59pm

      It is not just Ivy league schools but Law schools, business schools, journalist schools and teaching schools that have been doing no favors for this nation for the last 60 years.
      By the way if Obamacare is struck down How much of the deficit will be trimmed and how much will the staes be not required to spend on it?

      Report Post »  
    • agameofthrones
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:46pm

      Well it looks like Obama’s self-esteem is okay and that seems to be the goal of the Dept. of Ed. And I’m sure he “passed” all his classes with really good grades. Grades that were given, but not necessarily earned. His ultimate goal I believe was to do as much damage to the American way of life as possible as retribution to the evil white capitalists. Hopefully he will go out quickly and quietly. But if not………………….

      Report Post » agameofthrones  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:50pm

      @Working Poor
      Oh, he DID go to Harvard and Columbia. The point is, he produced nothing all those years in Ivy League schools — except for a thesis that is sealed.

      To his credit, Obum wrote a poem “[f]illed with apes That eat figs,” while at Occidental. “The apes howl, bare Their fangs, dance…”

      Hmm. It appears he already envisioned what his administration would do to America.

      Report Post »  
  • ConstitutionalPatriot
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:42pm

    ObamaCare un-Constitutional?? Who’d a thounk it??? OH yeah all of us! His thought of the fed being a land holder is un-Constitutional as well, how about that Constitutional Scholar missing those two and the ‘natural-born‘ citizen thing’ie, and even after he and his congressional members tried 7 times in 6yrs to change it.

    Me thinks he is a cad!

    Report Post » ConstitutionalPatriot  
  • Ironmaan
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:41pm

    The growth of our ever expanding government and it’s tyranny has just been stunted. http://guerillatics.com

    Report Post »  
  • Secessionista
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:40pm

    They are still giving healthcare to illegal aliens. This has to stop.

    Report Post » Secessionista  
    • capecodsully
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:48pm

      That’s the part the commies like best, American taxpayers paying for illegal alien’s healthcare.

      Report Post »  
    • MrWill
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:24pm

      They need to start billing the illegals home country’s government for the bill.

      Report Post » MrWill  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:40pm

    Incredible news; now watch for Obama to strike out at the Supreme Court to remove one of the more conservative members to force a split decision when this reaches them. He will not stop until the nation is down in flames for good.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • LICENSEDTOCARRY
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:29pm

      Don’t forget that Bo-Bo has already pissed off Chief Justice Roberts at his first Sate of the Union address. Payback will be so sweet.

      Report Post »  
    • psst
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 7:35pm

      I hope non of the con Supremes even go near Fort Marcy’s Park.
      They should print in white letters on their black robes. I can’t fly.
      Ya ‘ll do know Ol’ Vince flew in, doncha?
      He walked wayback in the park, yet no grass,grass stains,twigs, or leaves stuck to the soles of his shoes. Or mebbe the whole park is a concrete jungle.

      Report Post »  
  • Secessionista
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:39pm

    I am sure they admitted this begrudgingly.

    Pesky Constitution…

    Report Post » Secessionista  
  • Firebrand
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:38pm

    Of course it violates the commerce clause. You can’t purchase healthcare across state lines. That‘s on top of the fact that you shouldn’t be forced to purchase anything if not purchasing it is only a detriment to yourself. Plus, free heathcare is already provided for many people. We have both a free clinic where I live and both a Planned parenthood and a free prenatal care clinic for those who are going to give their children up for adoption. Horrible law, horrible idea, horrible implementation…etc.

    Report Post » Firebrand  
  • BB671
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:38pm

    All Bills should pass constitutional review before they are signed into law. This would stop the Goverment tyranny in its tracks. There should be a punishment for allowing this to happen!!!

    Report Post »  
    • countryfirst
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:56pm

      So true, but that makes sence and would save money. And washington can’t let either of those happen.

      Report Post » countryfirst  
  • awall1231
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:37pm

    ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!! take that you commies!!!!

    Report Post » awall1231  
  • Servant Of YHVH
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:36pm

    Progressive judges and politicians are unconstitutional. Get rid of the obamacare, progressive judges, progressive politicians and progressives in the White House!

    Report Post » Servant Of YHVH  
  • MiCurmudgeon
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:36pm

    Let’s see how the Obama Administration can deal with facts.

    Report Post »  
    • walkwithme1966
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:41pm

      They already are prepared for this – so laugh all you want – this healthcare plan is still going to be the law of the land! http://wp.me/pYLB7-1m1

      Report Post » walkwithme1966  
    • My Two Cents
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:42pm

      I’m sure Carney will set us all straight.

      Report Post »  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:03pm

      @walk This will never fly. Enough Americans would just “not participate” then what?

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • Brad Wesselmann
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:38pm

      Then walkwithme1966, and all their friends will try to force you to buy it…you know, their method of using the power of persuasion until it’s time to persuade us with power. We may have some hard and desperate times ahead of us, but they won’t win this time either…they just don’t have the numbers and we still have our weapons.

      Speak your mind, tell the truth and don’t be afraid of language (PC). The moment an opponent starts attacking the language you are using is the moment you have defeated their argument…don’t continue with the stupidity that will follow because you only risk your own sanity as they drive you through their house of mirrors. Take a nap instead, they will still be having the same circular argument when you wake up so at least you will be well rested. :-)

      Report Post » Brad Wesselmann  
  • kickagrandma
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:35pm

    So is obamamama, unconstitutional, that is.

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:38pm

      No there are other courts in other Circuits that have ruled otherwise. Sorry, Tea Baggers you are just going to have to deal with an improved health care system.

      Report Post »  
    • IAMMADDOG
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:50pm

      Yeah like everything else that the democrats improved…….what a joke the dems are. Just like a skunk can’t smell its own odor…..democrats can’t discern their own stupidity.

      Report Post »  
    • bhelmet
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:54pm

      Improved with what money? We have NONE!

      Report Post » bhelmet  
    • Shasta
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:56pm

      All this means is the ObummerCrud law goes on until the US Supreme Court hears this case next spring. They will find it unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote.

      Report Post » Shasta  
    • 70S_KIDS_FIGHTING_SOCIALISM
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:06pm

      @enema-man
      Your racist eugenics programs towards inner city back people is unconstitutional. You do have freedom of speech but not of all your racist progressive programs aimed at keeping inner city black people who you think are not your equal uneducated, and ALWAYS in need of Government welfare programs and finally using planed parenthood or as it should be known as PLANNED EXTERMINATION OF BLACK PEOPLE. This communist heal care program will be able to discriminate racially against black people especially old ones that progressives deem as useless eaters. I’m sorry I consider all people equal you racist.

      Report Post » 70S_KIDS_FIGHTING_SOCIALISM  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:07pm

      @Encinom I hope under your new healthcare plan you don’t have to long to wait for the surgery you need to have your head pulled out of your ass. Clever with the ********* remark.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • pudssweetie
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:10pm

      @Incinom, only 2 circuit courts have ruled for Obamacare and 2 against and the 11th court of appeals broke that tie for against. Where do you think this is going to be an improved system,forcing people to buy something they do not want is not improving anything. We already have some of the best health care here in the US, why do you think many people from Canada and other country’s come here seeking health care? If you honestly think this will improve health care then you really are a moron then.

      Report Post »  
    • WarriorPitbull
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:12pm

      Right Encinom, just keep spouting lies repeatedly and you think eventually everyone will believe it’s the truth. You are the epitome of the liberal progressive mental disorder.

      Report Post » WarriorPitbull  
    • Sleazy Hippo
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:24pm

      This is actually quite complex, there have been more than a dozen cases heard, and it will not be over soon. It will take one or more Supreme Court decisions to solve the Affordable health Care Act.

      EncinoM is Correct.

      Report Post » Sleazy Hippo  
    • encinom
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:24pm

      @pudssweetie
      It was 3 district court for and 2 against improving the health care system. The 11th circuit cover the Florida district court. The other courts where outside of the 11th Circuit.

      Lets see is we can impeach Justice Thomas in the mean time. Given the donations he has received yet failed to report, how hopelessly conflicted he is regarding the activism of his wife on this issue.

      Report Post »  
    • Perspective
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:56pm

      Encinom doesn’t even work. I saw him post it somewhere else. Of course he thinks Obamacare is better, he wants his free handout.

      Report Post » Perspective  
    • kryptonite
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 4:47pm

      @encinom
      Improved? Then why the 1,400+ waivers?

      And while we’re at it, is it not unconstitutional for dictator Obum to decide who applies and gets a waiver, and who can go to h*ll?

      Report Post »  
    • MHP
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 7:39pm

      encinom,

      I’m not gonna pay one damn dime to Obama for his joke of a health care plan.
      Emergency rooms at all County Hospitals have to by federal law treat you if you got no money, so no need for Obamacare.
      Obama just wants old people to die, and so do you, and you know that to be true

      Report Post » MHP  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 11:43pm

      @encinom
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:38pm

      No there are other courts in other Circuits that have ruled otherwise. Sorry, Tea Baggers you are just going to have to deal with an improved health care system.
      ————————————————————————————————————————————
      Sorry Hitler lover, but destroying the Individual mandate of it’s funding in 26 States, effectively renders the Law toothless. The Federal Government does not have the power to unequally assess taxes. The individual mandate is dead, but proxy, the law cannot be forced. STATES (where this discussion should never leave) are independently free (as they always have been) to make a State sponsored an option to include for its constituents.

      This is a bad day for you, and every socialist like you.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
  • lynnissmart
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:35pm

    The whole bill is unconstitional….period……..!

    Report Post »  
    • SlimnRanger
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:32pm

      Yes the entire bill was unconstitutional,we knew that when the wicked witch of the west said ” vote for the bill to see what’s in it”,and all those back room scandals,Obama,Peolsi,Harry Reed and others have one goal and thats to destroy the United States,at one time in this nation all would have been brought up on treason charges,remember when there was an outcry for Clinton to be impeached for having a to much fun in the White House, seems to me Obama has done much worse to the entire nation that what Clinton and his mistress did and i am not condoning what Clinton did by any means,i tried to word this without sounding vulgar,cause everyone knows what slick Willy engaged in

      Report Post »  
  • Mapache
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:35pm

    If everyone is not compelled to purchase Obamacare the whole system collapses…..good luck with the ‘rest of the law,’ if this is eliminated. It was a bad idea before, a bad idea now and the sooner we are done with it the better.
    There are two classes of people who do not have health insurance:
    1) those who legitimately cannot afford it….put them on medicaid
    2) those who can afford it but prefer to spend their money on other things….if they use health services make it easier to put a lien on their car, house or salary

    problem solved. …..and leave the rest of us alone. BTW, I pay for my own insurance as an individual payer with after tax money.

    Report Post » Mapache  
    • AlansTigg
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:39pm

      some people with out insurance just pay for their medical bills themselves…depending on your age and health it is sometimes cheaper, it is for me

      Report Post » AlansTigg  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 3:00pm

      You’re right on with that. Lots of the “uninsured” would rather spend thir money on a flat screen. They know if they go to the emergency room they can’t be turned away and then they stiff the hospital. The emergency room in the hospital near me is chocked full of Mexicans there for some minor ailment, think they’re going to pay that bill?

      Report Post » Gonzo  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:35pm

    …and the hits just keep on coming, huh Barry? Too bad schmuck.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
  • Vickie Dhaene
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:35pm

    We will keep beating this down. Now Congress needs to act. Impeach him now.

    Report Post »  
    • Working Poor
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 2:19pm

      The time will come. In 2013 when we have the WH and both the House and Senate, (proverbial) heads will roll…

      Shove it libs. :)

      Report Post » Working Poor  
  • gmoneytx
    Posted on August 12, 2011 at 1:34pm

    Chip away at the stone!

    Report Post » gmoneytx  
1 2 3 ... 7

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love