Vinson & Obama Care Part 1

Since everyone is talking about the Federal Judge that struck down Obama Care, I thought I'd take the time to read and share some pertinent quotes of this decision (read here). The decision is a great educational tool, and every American should take the time to read decisions that are written as well as this one. It almost seems as though some of these Conservative Judges want the average American to read their decisions and be educated as to how our system works. On the very first page, the Judge Robert Vinson states,

...but it bears repeating again: this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation, or whether it will solve or exacerbate the myriad problems in our health care system. In fact, it is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government.

I could not agree more. This is a great way to start off a decision and is a teachable moment to those who oppose liberty and individual freedom in the name of emotional health care arguments. Vinson immediately quotes Madison as to the problem our system naturally runs into in the attempt to frame a Federal Government to which he again cites the Federalist papers,

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

So here is the crux of the argument. Does the Federal government have the enumerated power to take over our health care system or even to regulate it in the fashion they have chosen? Again, the issue is not about health issues or whether or not our system needs reform, but about the Federal government's role in regulating it. As he states on page 3,

As Chief Justice Marshall aptly predicted nearly 200 years ago, while everyone may agree that the federal government is one of enumerated powers, “the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, so long as our system shall exist.”

The issue at stake is the Tenth Amendment and the heart of the Constitutional authority for the Federal government. Vinson makes reference to Marshall,

The Framers believed that limiting federal power, and allowing the “residual”

power to remain in the hands of the states (and of the people), would help “ensure

protection of our fundamental liberties” and “reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse.

I realize that many disagree with Vinson and believe he is legislating from the bench. Many believe in the centralization of the Federal government's powers. But as I think will be seen, the powers that would be granted under Obama Care are extremely dangerous. I would like to use a current political battle as an example.

Right now, certain homosexual groups want to legitimize homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage in the public sphere. If Obama Care is allowed to stand, the Federal government could rightly regulate the sexual practices of the male homosexual. Now I fully realize that President Obama is the most pro-homosexual President ever, but keep in mind, he will not be President forever. What if a radical homosexual hating president becomes elected? What if he decides that homosexual activity is costing the Federal government too much money (or as in the case of marijuana no money at all!)? Under the exact same arguments put forth by Obama's lawyers, the Federal government could make homosexual practices a crime or at least be regulated in some manner. And this does not need a homosexual hating president to actually happen. It could be a mere cost issue. So the very thing homosexuals fear about the so-called radical right wing trying to pass laws that "peek into their bedrooms" will be the very thing Obama Care authorizes.

I will conclude this post with Vinson's next section. Judge Vinson deals mainly with two counts, the Medicaid Expansion (the "coercion" argument) and the Individual Mandate. Vinson dismisses the Medicaid Mandate count relatively quickly by page 13 of a 78 page decision. He explains the issue on page 7,

Preliminarily, I note that in their complaint the state plaintiffs appear to have relied solely on a “coercion and commandeering” theory. Nowhere in that pleading do they allege or intimate that the Act also violates the four “general restrictions” in Dole, nor did they make the argument in opposition to the defendants’ previous motion to dismiss.

This is basically the "coercion" argument. After only 6 pages Vinson concludes,

In short, while the plaintiffs’ coercion theory claim was plausible enough to survive dismissal, upon full consideration of the relevant law and the Constitutional  principles involved, and in light of the numerous disputed facts alluded to above, I must conclude that this claim cannot succeed and that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

So Obama wins at first glance, but then comes the longer half (definitely the bigger half of the candy bar), the Individual Mandate,which we will look at in a future post.