The ruling did not ultimately strike down any provision of the Affordable Care Act. Nevertheless, the court ruled that the Medicaid provision could survive if the Health and Human Services Secretary had limited power to enforce the law— which in practice made the expansion optional for states. Gluck says the Texas federal judge threw out the entire law on the grounds that Congress had never intended for the law to exist without the individual mandate.
The Affordable Care Act will stay in place until the appeals process is completed— and the case will possibly go before the Supreme Court.
For now, at least, people with preexisting conditions, young adults between 21 and 26, and others who have been able to enroll in health insurance under the law will remain protected. The U. Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement that it will continue to uphold the Affordable Care Act until the courts reach a final decision. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said that the law will stay in place until the appeal process is completed.
O'Connor also held that the rest of the Affordable Care Act was not "severable" from the individual mandate, essentially scrapping the whole law.
On review, the 5th U. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with O'Connor that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but urged him to review the law with a "finer-toothed comb" to determine "which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the individual mandate. Seeking to avoid the uncertainty that an ongoing battle in the lower courts would entail, the Democratic states and the House of Representatives filed separate petitions urging the Supreme Court to settle the matter quickly.
The court denied the request to expedite arguments in January. Wednesday's ruling will have no immediate effect. For now, the Obamacare program continues. IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser. Politics Covid U. News World Opinion Business. Two things become apparent after reading these arguments attempting to justify extending Commerce Clause power to the legislation in that case, and the majority opinion which is the controlling precedent rejecting those same arguments.
Uniqueness is not an adequate limiting principle, as every market problem is, at some level and in some respects, unique. If Congress asserts power that exceeds its enumerated powers, then it is unconstitutional, regardless of the purported uniqueness of the context in which it is being asserted. If impact on interstate commerce were to be expressed and calculated mathematically, the status of being uninsured would necessarily be represented by zero.
Of course, any other figure multiplied by zero is also zero. Consequently, the impact must be zero, and of no effect on interstate commerce. The uninsured can only be said to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce in the manner as described by the defendants: i if they get sick or injured; ii if they are still uninsured at that specific point in time; iii if they seek medical care for that sickness or injury; iv if they are unable to pay for the medical care received; and v if they are unable or unwilling to make payment arrangements directly with the health care provider, or with assistance of family, friends, and charitable groups, and the costs are thereafter shifted to others.
And when they do, Congress plainly has the power to regulate them at that time or even at the time that they initially seek medical care , a fact with which the plaintiffs agree. The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort.
It is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.
Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.
0コメント