ObamaCare struck down as unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Solver, Dec 15, 2018.

  1. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
  2. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #4
    The argument is that Roberts upheld the ACA as an exercise of the government’s taxing power, and now that the individual mandate penalty is gone, that basis no longer works. The problem is that this new decision invalidated the entire ACA, which is nonsensical, given that most of the statute has nothing to do with the individual mandate penalty. The Fifth Circuit will reverse in those grounds, which does not really present an issue for the Supreme Court to consider.
     
  3. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 603

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #5
  4. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #6
    I can't wrap my head around this ruling. Congress, lacking the votes to repeal the ACA, made the individual mandate unenforceable by reducing the penalty to zero and left the rest of the law standing. And now the judge's ruling is that the entirety of the law can't stand because the individual mandate is no longer enforceable? WTH?
     
  5. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #7
    The Individual Mandate can only be construed as an exercise of Congress' taxing powers if it raises at least some revenue. Since it no longer raises anything as the penalty was reduced to zero, this argument disappears. The District Court held that the Individual Mandate is not severable from the ACA based on Congress' intent:

    Basically, the Individual Mandate is no longer legal because it can no longer be viewed as a tax. Further, based on Congress' own words, they say the Individual Mandate is "essential" to reaching the Act's objectives. Therefore, the Court has said it cannot be severed from the ACA, meaning the entire law is no longer legal.
     
  6. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #8
    Why don't we just rename it Romneycare so the GOP will support it.
     
  7. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #9
    But given that the Congress zeroed out the penalty while leaving the rest of the law in place, the individual mandate obviously IS considered severable by the legislative branch. What am I missing?
    Maybe those were the words in 2010. In 2017, Congress clearly said that the law can stand without the individual mandate, because that's the law they passed. What gives the judge the right to say otherwise?
     
  8. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #10
    That is wrong. In addition to Congress' intent, but also as I'm reading the ruling, all nine SCOTUS justices agreed that the Individual Mandate was essential to the proper functioning of the law and could not be severed:

    Far from being unrelated to most of the statute, the Individual Mandate, as expressed by Congress and no less than nine Supreme Court justices, was "essential" and was intended to work "together with" its other provisions.
     
  9. Rhonindk, Dec 15, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2018

    Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    watching the birth of the Dem WTH Party
    #11
    You should do a bit more digging. This lawsuit which was recognized as likely to see a ruling against ACA was in scope before Trump.
    We will see this in SCOTUS.
    Forced insurance. Not Constitutional.
     
  10. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #12
    Doubt it. The fifth is heavily conservative I think they’ll uphold the ruling and it goes to the Supreme Court.
     
  11. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #13
    Thank you for trying to remind people of the origins of the ACA.

    People forget that the the individual mandate was Romney's/GOP's way of preventing individuals from 'freeloading' - that is, not taking out insurance, incurring medical costs, and then simply declaring bankruptcy, thereby making everybody else pay for their medical care. And its heart, the ACA is pure GOP. But because it was passed by a black Democrat POTUS, it has to be evil. :rolleyes:
     
  12. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #14
    It is not possible to determine the intent of the 2017 Congress because it did not (also could not) repeal any part of the ACA. The District Court addresses this:

     
  13. Rigby macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #15
    This does not make any sense. If Congress didn't change the law, the individual mandate is still the same that was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. If they did change the law to remove just the individual mandate, they were obviously of the opinion that the law does not require the mandate. They can't have it both ways.
     
  14. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #16
    They didn't remove the Individual Mandate; it still exists. They reduced its accompanying tax penalty to zero, which renders it no longer a tax (meaning its original legality ruled on by the Supreme Court no longer applies).
     
  15. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #17
    The non-severability finding in this decision has essentially no chance of surviving appeal.
     
  16. JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #18
    Which is why some see this as nonsensical & an 'activist judge' ( remember them? ) in action.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...tional-texas-judge-strikes-down-reed-o-connor
    --- Post Merged, Dec 15, 2018 ---
    The judge's ruling is based on the concept that congress did indeed remove the Individual Mandate.
     
  17. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #19
    The bold-ed passage isn't correct. In NFIB v Sebelius four Justices found that the individual mandate couldn't be severed from the rest of the ACA.

    As for Congress' intent, it isn't the 2010-version of the individual mandate which has been found unconstitutional. So Congress' intent with regard to that version isn't what matters when it comes to the question of severability. It is Congress' intent with regard to the 2017-version that is at issue. And when it comes to that version, it's pretty clear that Congress didn't think the individual mandate was essential to the operation of the ACA as a whole. It zeroed out the tax penalty, the only consequence of not having the specified coverage, while leaving the rest of the ACA as it was.

    I'd also note that while the Supreme Court didn't need to decide, in NFIB v Sebelius, on the severability of the individual mandate, the Eleventh Circuit had decided in that case that it was severable. Though it's not really relevant here, I'd also add that the Supreme Court did decide in NFIB v Sebelius that the part of the Medicaid expansion which it struck down was severable.
     
  18. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #20
    What specific part of the Constitution is it violating?
     
  19. kobalap macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    #21
    And instead of an individual mandate, we can have tariffs on people who don't maintain healthcare coverage. Then the Trump supporters will be bonkers for it.
     
  20. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #22
    It doesn’t violate any specific provision but it’s enacted through powers that are not specifically enumerated by the constitution for congress. That makes it unconstitutional.
     
  21. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #23
    Are you asking for an answer in keeping with existing constitutional doctrines, or an answer in keeping with original intent and understanding? Meaning, based on how we've been interpreting certain constitutional provisions or based on how we (i.e. the people answering) think those provisions should have been interpreted?
     
  22. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #24
    I hope it does gets struck down. Let people cry and beg for financial sympathy on GoFundMe when they get into a serious health situation without insurance. /s
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    Obama cate was exactly that. A massive tax on the people. Glad mandate is gone.
     

Share This Page

61 December 15, 2018