Kopel & Natelson discuss Virginia v. Sebelius
A Virginia judge just ruled against ObamaCare’s individual mandate [HR 3590], saying that the Constitution’s Commerce Power does not justify Congress regulating economic inactivity. Professor Rob Natelson & Research Director Dave Kopel comment on the court’s ruling & what that means for AG Suther’s case.
Pro-liberty reactions to Virginia health care lawsuit (Cuccinelli-v-Sebelius)
A federal judge has ruled mandatory insurance to be unconstitutional. Pro-liberty reactions including the Independence Institute’s Dave Kopel, scholars from the Cato Institute, Reason magazine journalists, bloggers from the Volokh Conspiracy, & National Review’s health care blog.
Constitution’s ‘commerce power’ doesn’t permit Obamacare
Constitutional debate about the new health care law has been about the law’s mandate that individuals buy health insurance. But the constitutional issues also include whether the federal government should be regulating health care at all. The Founders would have said “no.”
Lawsuits vs. mandatory insurance could prevail
When 21 states and several private groups initiated lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care law earlier this year, critics denounced the suits as frivolous political grandstanding. But it is increasingly clear that the plaintiffs have a serious case with a real chance of victory.
Health care lawsuit moves forward
The Atlantic reports on the multi-state legal challenge to the health control bill, HR 3590. Remember, Amendment 63 will be even more important should the lawsuit succeed. Reports the Atlantic: On Thursday, a federal judge in Florida ruled that a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law can move forward. U.S. District Judge […]
Dave Kopel on Michigan ObamaCare lawsuit
Dave Kopel writes in the Daily Caller: Thursday’s decision in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama is a short-term victory for President Obama’s health control law. Yet a close reading of the case suggests that the law may have a very tough time once it gets before the Supreme Court. … The choice not to […]
Amendment 63: Denver Post vs. liberty & the U.S. Constitution
Rob Natelson, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute, writes: The legal whizzes on the editorial board of the Denver Post have spoken: Amendment 63, the Right to Health Care Choice Initiative, is bad because Obama Care is constitutional. Today’s editorial reads: [W]e believe [Obama Care] will survive legal challenges and will […]
Colorado Amendment 63, the commerce clause, & the Constitution
In his article in support of Colorado Amendment 63 (health care choice), Wayne Laugesen writes: Congress has no authority to require individuals to buy private insurance, which is the basis of the lawsuit filed by states. It has no such authority because the Constitution does not grant it, not by any twisting of any phrase. […]
Colorado Amendment 63 (health care choice) not a “PR stunt”
Is the Colorado Right to Health Care Choice Initiative a “public relations stunt,” as a political science professor says? No, it’s not. Should a lawsuit against the mandatory insurance provision of HR 3590 succeed, the Feds will pressure states into enforcing it. And regardless of the lawsuit, state-level legislation have influenced the enforcement and reform […]
Can Missouri’s Prop. C block Feds from enforcing mandatory insurance?
The St. Louis Business Journal reports:
Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition C at Tuesday’s election, but it will likely be overturned in court, law and health-care experts say.
Proposition C creates a law banning the government from forcing Missourians to buy health insurance under the federal health-care overhaul [HR 3590] starting in 2014.
“The Constitution clearly states […]
