Cox: Obamacare ruling ‘a welcome sign’ (Michigan View.com 12.15.10)

Posted by hpayne on December 15, 2010

Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling Monday declaring Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional gave a boost to Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox whose office has joined 19 other AGs in Florida in the Mother of All Lawsuits against the Democrats’ health scheme.

“Never before in our history have you had to buy something as the price of citizenship,” Cox said in a Monday press release. “Today’s ruling is a welcome sign that Michigan’s legal challenge to this unprecedented overreach by Congress and the President will succeed.”

The Virginia ruling comes just two months after another district court judge in Detroit dismissed a challenge to the Obamacare mandate

“If Congress can require this, then there’s no check on federal power,” added Cox on The Frank Beckmann Show Tuesday AM. While Cox will be relinquishing his office this January, incoming AG Bill Schuette has said he will continue the suit. “I’ll pass it on to him,” Cox told Beckmann. “I will be watching with great interest. This case is important to what we are as a people.”

Like Michigan’s challenge, the Virginia district court case questioned Washington’s authority to force Americans to purchase a product as the price of citizenship. “If Congress can require this, then there is no check on federal power,” he warned in an appearance on The Frank Beckmann Show Tuesday AM.

While narrow in its scope and only addressing Virginia’s statute banning the mandate, Hudson’s ruling was a blow to the cornerstone of Obama’s takeover of health care and echoed the larger AG’s suit that Obamacare is a violation of the Commerce Clause.

“A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to

purchase a product,” wrote Hudson. “The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite

unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, the dispute is. . . about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”

Back in October, District Court Judge George Steeh in Detroit bought Obama’s argument that the mandate was not a violation of the Commerce Clause. “By choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars, $43 billion in 2008, onto other market participants.”

The next arena for this battle comes Thursday when Florida Judge Roger Vinson will hold a hearing on motions for summary judgment in the case.

The conflicting opinions lead many observers to project the case will ultimately be settled by a deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court – an appropriate end to the highly partisan legislation that seeks to regulate nearly 20 percent of the U.S. economy. In a symbol of his divisive presidency, Obama is the first president to pass modern domestic legislation without a single vote from the opposing party.

True to form, Metro Detroit Congressional reps split on the Virginia decision along partisan lines.

“I have stood firm in my position that Congress had no authority to impose a mandate that an individual purchase health insurance,” said Republican Rep. Candice Miller in supporting Hudson’s decision.

By contrast, Democrat Rep. Sander Levin didn’t try to make a legal argument for the mandate – the administration has argued everything from tax law to the Commerce Clause to justify it – but simply said “a quality health care system for all Americans is built on the premise that responsibility is shared between employers, the government, and the individual.”

He also took a partisan shot at Hudson as a biased “Bush appointee.”

Comments are closed.