RESPONSE TO RULING DISTORTS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY

RESPONSE TO RULING DISTORTS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY

By Joel Griffith

On January 31st, US District Judge Robert Vinson ruled that the health care "reform" act’s insurance purchase mandate is unconstitutional. In fact, due to the lack of a severability clause in the bill, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire bill is "void.”

-

Just hours later, the Obama administration announced that despite the clear ruling, states will not be permitted to halt implementation of the act. In explanation of the Administration’s odd response, Administration officials stated that the ruling "does not in any way fit with a traditional Commerce Clause analysis."

-

This explanation shows a stunning disregard for the Constitution. First, judicial review of legislation is firmly established under Marbury v. Madison. Since 1803, this case has been the cornerstone for every constitutional challenge to legislative acts. Regardless of whether Judge Vinson’s ruling indeed fails to "fit with a traditional Commerce Clause analysis", the Administration must respect the judiciary's role in determining the constitutionality of legislation. The appeals process is the proper route by which to challenge the ruling of a court on this matter! Instead, the Administration chose to usurp the authority of the federal courts based on its own interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

-

In addition to obscuring the role of judicial review, the Administration asserts that Judge Vinson's ruling fell outside "traditional Commerce Clause analysis." This accusation blatantly distorts the truth. Let's take a look at the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (known as the Commerce Clause) states, "[The United States Congress shall have the power] to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." In short, Judge Vinson ruled that this Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power of mandating that citizens purchase certain goods or services. This legislation, which for the first time includes such a mandate, is what truly falls far outside the mainstream of Commerce Clause analysis.

-

The Administration deliberately chooses to project an altered image of reality.