Jews For Judges!

Florida AG Bill McCollum today filed a suit in the ND FL seeking to have the new health care reform bill declared unconstitutional.

It's a hodgepodge of overheated rhetoric for the most part, though buried in there is a somewhat plausible 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause challenge.

As noted barrister Vincent Gambini once asked, "does this argument hold water"?

Writing for the conservative Federalist Society last year, former HHS officials Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith said it might:
If Congress were to invoke its Commerce Clause authority to support legislation mandating individual health insurance coverage, such an action would have to contend with recent Supreme Court precedent limiting unfettered use of Commerce Clause authority to police individual behavior that does not constitute interstate commerce: United States v. Lopez,10 invalidating the application of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 to individuals and United States v. Morrison,11 invalidating certain portions of the Violence Against Women Act. In the case of a mandate to purchase health insurance or face a tax or penalty, Congress would have to explain how not doing something – not buying insurance and not seeking health care services – implicated interstate commerce.

While most health care insurers and health care providers may engage in interstate commerce and may be regulated accordingly under the Commerce Clause, it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction. The decision not to engage in affirmative conduct is arguably distinguishable from cases in which Commerce Clause regulatory authority was recognized over intra-state activity: growing wheat (Wickard v. Filmore)12 or, more recently, growing marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).13 Reliance on the Commerce Clause to justify the constitutionality of an individual mandate might be susceptible to an “as applied” challenge from individuals who (1) never access the health care system or (2) are able to pay for their health care without using insurance, because the government could not claim an impact on interstate commerce of providers and insurers as a result of uncompensated care.

An individual mandate also presents issues under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Taking Clause. Given the uncertainty with how an individual mandate would comport with religious beliefs regarding health care choices, the Senate Finance Committee policy outline suggests creating an exception to the health insurance mandate for “religious reasons.” It still leaves open, however, the question of whether the compelled purchase of health insurance constitutes the “taking” of private property under the Fifth Amendment. Given the novel nature of the individual health insurance mandate, a Fifth Amendment challenge can be expected. Requiring a citizen to devote a percent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances could be considered an arbitrary and capricious “taking” no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense.
On the other hand, Simon Lazarus, writing for the liberal American Constitution Society last year, said the Constitutional issues are seriously overblown:

Opponents' arguments to the contrary express philosophical objections to the concept of mandatory health insurance in principle, without regard to the practical issues the Supreme Court has always used to evaluate laws challenged as outside Congress' interstate commerce authority: the practical impact of the mandate on commerce or the public welfare or the welfare of affected individuals, or the rationality of Congress' judgments about its impact on statutory goals. No doubt, in some quarters, opponents' libertarian views are deeply felt. But they have no basis in law, neither in the grants of authority to Congress in Article I nor in limitations on that authority in the Bill of Rights, nor in the case law interpreting these provisions. Opponents' real grievance is with the law in its current state. Their hope is that a majority of the Supreme Court will seize on a challenge to mandatory health insurance as an occasion to make major changes in current law. But their arguments appear unlikely to gain traction with the current Supreme Court, and, indeed, represent approaches and theories that have been repudiated by justices across the Court's ideological spectrum.

Given that the individual mandate does not kick in until 2014, is there a ripeness problem as well?

Oh well, while we cogitate on all this it is time to fete the judges (again).

Put on your best schmooze-face and I'll see you tonight!


  1. It's funny how the right always whines about 'activist lawyers' running to 'activist courts' to overturn legislation that can't be defeated through democratic means. BOO FRICKIN HOO

  2. SFL, Are those young ladies practicing Krav Maga? Sign me up.

  3. Your tax dollars funding BigLaw's effort to dismantle HCR-

  4. kravmagkravmagkravmagyumyumyum

  5. I think the health care debate is going to get a little more interesting. I've been sitting back wondering how they could mandate heath care according to the Constitution. They're saying interstate commerce as you mentioned. And I guess Federal trumps State law. But I doubt the battle is over yet.

    P.S. Sweet pic! You need to send me some more Spring Break pictures. LOL.

  6. Vincent Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.

    Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?

    Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?

    Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

    Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.

    Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled.

  7. tallahassee Lassie would be a wonderful third to those young women.

    That's pretty much my definition of heaven

  8. The AG has no authority to file this type of lawsuit. When it comes to federal laws affecting the state he only has the authority to "study" the issue. See FS sec. 16.52 (1). This is total BS, a waste of tax dollars and a blatant attempt at trying to get more votes for governor.

  9. I think the whole issue regarding constitutionality could have been thrown out the window if Congress had changed the letter of the legislation and instead of forcing people to buy private insurance (this one really bothers me), they would have forced all to pay a tax (like Medicare) and then allow people to buy into Medicare (public option). Those that couldn't afford the cost would be helped by the tax.

  10. Considering what Scalia did to the 14th Amendment with Bush v. Gore, there is good reason to be concerned about what he might do to the Commerce Clause here.

  11. Whoever wed in bleak November, only better -- a sex cam new mail
    account, it will be a tremendous need for a song from the tinny stuff the HTC
    One X. The parrallels in these images in their views about the trillion dollar coin, right now on.

    Feel free to visit my web site :: cam sex


Post a Comment