Update: A Federal Appeals Court Rules Obama’s Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance Unconstitutional

    
     A United States federal appeals court has upheld a district court ruling that the individual federal mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. The mandate is part of the federalization of health insurance proposed and signed into law by President Barak Obama.

     Twenty-six States, led by Florida, are suing the federal government over the federal takeover of health insurance, as is Virginia in a separate case. The 26 States’ main argument is against the mandate to purchase health insurance, on the grounds that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to impose it. At stake are the rights of the States to regulate intrastate commerce, as opposed to the federal power to regulate only interstate commerce (the Commerce Clause of the Constitution), as well as the liberty of the people.

     In a stunning decision, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Florida federal district court ruling in favor of the states, noting the lack of constitutional authority. By a 2-1 majority, the court rejected the Obama Administration’s argument that the power to regulate interstate commerce grants the federal government the authority to regulate all matters of economic authority – even to the extent of forcing someone to purchase a particular good or service. The majority, which included judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, observed that not only would individuals be required to purchase a service they did not want under the plan, but to continue to purchase it every month for the rest of their lives. In its lengthy opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected the Obama Administration’s notion that there are no limits to federal power in regard to economic matters and noted the slippery slope toward regulating every economic decision by every citizen.

     It is remarkable that the Left expected no court, much less a federal appeals court, to rule the mandate unconstitutional. Liberals arrogantly believe that there are no limits to government power. Worse, they believe there ought not to be any limits to the power of the federal government, despite the Constitutional principles of limited government and federalism that reserves rights to the States. When the federalization of health insurance and its individual mandate were proposed, the Obama Administration, the liberal Democratic Congress that passed it and their supporters on the Left confidently assumed the federal government had the power to impose such a mandate and categorically dismissed any question that was raised as to whether it did. These liberals cited various parts of the Constitution as the source of such authority. Even the Administration undermined its argument by making contradictory claims of authority. As I have noted in previous posts, liberals have grown smug in expanding federal power especially through the Commerce Clause that grants the United States authority only to regulate interstate commerce. They have gradually expanded that power to include all commerce, beyond only commerce that occurs between states. In this case, they sought to expand federal power even further to regulate personal decisions not to engage in commerce. Indeed, the Administration had argued that the acceptance of this gradual expansion of federal economic power justified even further expansion of federal power.

     Now, not only have two federal district courts, but even a federal appeals court ruled the mandate unconstitutional, but because there have been contrary opinions by courts of appeals in other cases (in which no state has been a party), the appeals court ruling makes it more likely the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the appeal and settle the matter once and for all. It is highly possible the Court could declare the mandate, the linchpin of Obama’s federalization of health insurance, unconstitutional.

     Even though these federal court rulings so far have been on the narrow grounds of whether or not a decision not to engage in commerce constitutes interstate commerce, and not on the broader question of whether any commerce that occurs only within a state can be considered interstate commerce, they are nonetheless striking a major blow to liberal efforts to expand federal power in violation of the rights of the States and the people. They are finally drawing a bright line past which the powers claimed by the federal government cannot extend and are thereby upholding federalism, but the liberty of the people.