RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two other federal judges in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.
Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. The key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.
"This won<t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution," Cuccinelli said in a statement after the ruling.
Hudson, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.
Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.
The central issue in Virginia's lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government's authority under the Commerce Clause.
Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.
Report a correction
It's Really About Republican Politics, Not Health Care
Let's not forget two things: 1. the alternative (do nothing Republicans allowing thevish health insurance companies to continue to drive America into the ground) and 2. this is all about Republican politics. The Republican party isn't afraid that this health care change will "harm" access, they are afraid it will work. Everything else is just what worthless, anti-egalitarian Republicans say to jerk around the most ignorant among all Americans.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Still waiting
Instead of answering the question we get name calling and defamation of character. Then we are told that since the professors 'regard' a lecturer as a professor, well then he must be. Using that logic, if they "regarded" him as a goat herder, then he must be. If your title is not PROFESSOR, then you are not a PROFESSOR. And still the libs skirt the issue of showing exactly where in the US Constitution the powers are granted to Congress to force a citizen to purchase a commercial good or service under threat of penalties and imprisonment.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Waiting doesn't get Gil an Education
As it doesn't get certain unemployed a job. You have to take a proactive part in learning why the government can levy 'administrative penalties' - you've obviously decided not to. Your problem - not mine.
And you've also positioned yourself as arbiter as to whether or not the University of Chicago may describe one of their employees as a Professor or not. My, my, my; there are many titles you may not have been bequethed with, Gilliam, but I' sure you aptly fill the bill as them. Except presently Law Course Student. We'll leave the rest unsaid.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm still waiting
to find out form any of the libs on here where exactly Congress is afforded the power to fine and imprison citizens of this country for failing to purchase a good or service. So far all they have been able to offer is the Commerce Clause and Administrative Law. The Commerce Clause does not apply because failure to purchase a good or service does not constitute Commerce. And Administrative Law is not a 4th branch of government no matter what alleged(boy that CV just keeps growing) law courses were taken. As if to prove the point, or make it seem real, the tired lie of the messiah being a Law professor is brought out. No, he wasn't. That is what is known as a lie. He was an Instructor, never a Professor of Law. So, we are left still waiting for an answer as to how exactly a Community Organizer and a rogue Congress has found in the Constitution of the United States the power to fine and imprison citizens who do not purchase a commercial product.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Poor widdle Gil!
Throws a tantrum because we expect him to obtain education on his own like a grown-up.
What's your excuse? Someone say they're gonna meet you "Anytime-Anyplace" by the school-house door, and you're soiling your pants?? Then try a correspondence course - Just put some hard work in, do the home work, research the cases, and write the papers like I had to. I takes work to get ahead - didn't anyone teach you that - ?? Go spend some time with 'Real' Professors.
And yes - The University of Chicago did Consider Barack Obama a Professor in the Law School. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
Read it and weep.
"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This headline and article is
This headline and article is misleading.
The judge did not find the federal health care law unconstitutional. He found only one provision of the law (the only one he reviewed) unconstitutional. This decision will be appealed, ultimately, to the Supreme Court and found constitutional as there is no mandate to purchase health insurance in the law. There is only a tax (penalty) for not purchasing health insurance, which the federal government has the constitutional authority to impose.
Isn't it ironic, that in 1993, this so called mandate was proposed by the Republicans in Congress in response to President Clinton's health care reform proposals.
These politicians are all the same, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, etc...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What Constitution do you use?
You stated "There is only a tax (penalty) for not purchasing health insurance, which the federal government has the constitutional authority to impose. " Please show us where in the US Constitution there is a provision that provides for Congress to levy a penalty (it's not a tax, it's a fine) if you do not purchase a good or service? And what health care bill did you read? There is definitely a mandate to buy insurance with well spelled out fines and penalties, including and up to serving time in jail, if you fail to purchase health insurance. I know it's a crazy thing to expect from one of the dumb masses who support this travesty, but try, really try, to use actual facts when you defend your messiah,
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What Constitution do you use?
You stated "There is only a tax (penalty) for not purchasing health insurance, which the federal government has the constitutional authority to impose. " Please show us where in the US Constitution there is a provision that provides for Congress to levy a penalty (it's not a tax, it's a fine) if you do not purchase a good or service? And what health care bill did you read? There is definitely a mandate to buy insurance with well spelled out fines and penalties, including and up to serving time in jail, if you fail to purchase health insurance. I know it's a crazy thing to expect from one of the dumb masses who support this travesty, but try, really try, to use actual facts when you defend your messiah,
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's a 'Penalty"
You should have gone to school, Gil. You'de have learned that there is a fourth 'quasi' branch of Government, with it's own particular scope of law - and legal system - which, are for the most part - 'Rules'
You're familiar with the Executive, Congressional, and Judicial branches of Government. There is for all intents and purposes a fourth - which is the 'Admiistrative.' Look up "Administrative Law" and "Administrative Procedures Act" - either google them or go to wikipedia. Many folks don't have a clue they're out there.
Here's a link: http://www.hg.org/adm.html
That may flesh it out a bit for you. You don't even need a Messiah, though as a Constitutional Law Professor he probably is much more familiar with them than you. They deal with all of the various Federal Agencies.
"Administrative Law integrates several areas of law, which include administrative rules, regulations and procedures for government agencies and bodies; the scope of agency authority, in particular individual privacy; and enforcement powers of agencies. In the United States, access to information about the government is also an integral part of administrative regulations."
You wonder "Where in the Constitution?"
Now why is is that you've never taken any Constitutional Law courses there, Gilliam?. Then you would know the answer and not have to ask these questions.
Seeing how you've got time to hurl epithets at folks, and offer to meet them "Any time, Any place" - Methinks you should simply put that time to good use and take a number of upper level Con Law courses as I did when I was younger. When you've done the work one gets more satisfaction out of the knowledge gained, and understand how government works - and why penalties may be levied.
No - you can't have my old notes.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.unbiased
I wonder if being a GOP stooge had anything to do with it. Since 2003, the judge has earned $103,000 from GOP Consulting firm Campaign Solutions, Inc. Campaign Solutions works for Boehner, Bachman, McCain, and a whole bunch of other republiclowns. http://goo.gl/cMAt7
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.this is unconstitutional
its no diffrent then having a law that requires you to only buy a Ford or forcing you to buy a car. you cannot force people to buy something thats sold privately.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm not surprised
Lincoln should have let the South go.
I assume the next ruling from this judge will be to declare McCain the winner in 2008. Today would have right for that given that the Scalia Mob pulled off the US's first coup d'etat ten years ago today.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (6) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yellowdog, I do agree with
Yellowdog, I do agree with you on one of your points.
Lincoln should have abandoned Fort Sumter and let the South live and govern as they wish. Quite a few of my relatives died trying to preserve the South and even though they died, and Lincoln prevailed, the cause was just, and the effort was not in vain.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Nice reply
I guess if you don't have facts and the truth on your side you have to denigrate those involved.Now it's because the South is ignorant? And then of course you spend the rest of your reply crying about the 2000 election that has already been shown to be won by Bush time and again. Don't take the time to explain why you believe that the messiah's unConstitutional bill should be upheld, whine about the Supremes stopping a runaway court in the part of the country that you apparently despise anyway. Don't take the time to show us where the powers are granted to the Congress to force the citizens of this country to purchase a good or service under penalty of fines and/or imprisonment. That would make sense and we know better than to expect that from a lib fool who still actually believes that Bush stole the 2000 election.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Surprise, and unqualified
Surprise, and unqualified bush flunky decides this law is unconsititutional. Kinda sad when nobody judges decide to make a name for themselves by exceeding their mental powers and legislate from the bench. This person? should be thrown off the bench, but I'm certain he'll be at the top of the list for republicans to nominate to the Supreme Court. I'm certain the incoming weeper of the house will try to have him proclaimed as a de facto Supreme.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (10) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.How sad
and how typical a lib response from Dan/Mortron. Because the Judge is not a dem appointee, he is unqualified? Please point out to us Dan why this judge is unqualified. I 'm sure you know because you actually did the research on this Judge and his quals before you posted. What's that? You didn't? I should have known that. Since you're apparently too lazy I'll help you out. A simple Google check finds - Hudson received a B.A. from American University in 1969 and a J.D. from American University Washington College of Law in 1974. Wait, there's more - Hudson was an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney in Arlington County, Virginia from 1974 to 1979. He was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1978 to 1979. He was in private practice in 1979, from 1991 to 1992, and from 1994 to 1998. He was Commonwealth's Attorney for Arlington County, Virginia from 1980 to 1986. He was the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1986 to 1991. Hudson was Director of the United States Marshals Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Justice, from 1992 to 1993, under President George H.W. Bush. He was a circuit court judge on Virginia's Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court (Fairfax County, Virginia) from 1998 to 2002.Wow! Kind of seems pretty well qualified to me. Of course, you would know better with all of your vast experience. What was that experience again?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Excellent ruling
It appears that the Jugde struck down the whole law and not just portions of it, which is good.
I really believe that this is one law that the American will just not stand for. This fight will not end until it is repealed for good. Then, and only then, can we get some meaningful health care reform passed that actually works.
Nobody is against reform, we desperately need reform, but not this crazy legislation. I believe that Obama was so intent on being the president that finally got reform passed, that he overlooked both the practicality of his bill, and neglected the will of the people.
This is backfiring in his face, and won't stop until his mistakes are corrected.
PS....and it isn't George Bush's fault, but somehow, Obama will find a way to blame him.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (10)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.