Highlights From the Ruling:
“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, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”
* * *
“[S]everal operative elements are commonly challenged in Commerce Clause decisions. First, to survive a constitutional challenge, the subject matter must be economic in nature and affect interstate commerce, and second, it must involve activity. ... In her argument, the Secretary [of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius] urges an expansive interpretation of the concept of activity. She posits that every individual in the United States will require health care at some point in their lifetime, if not today, perhaps even next week or next year... This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”
* * *
“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance — or crafting a scheme of universal health coverage — it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”
* * *
“This Court is . . . unpersuaded that [the individual mandate] is a bona fide revenue-raising measure enacted under the taxing power of Congress. . . . No plausible argument can be made that it has ‘the purpose of supporting the Government.’”
* * *
“Importantly, it is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue — it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance. An enactment that exceeds the power of Congress to adopt adversely affects everyone in every application.”
* * *
“Salutatory goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers.”
* * *
“The shift in terminology during the final hours preceding an extremely close floor vote undermines the contention that the terms ‘penalty’ and ‘tax’ are synonymous.”
* * *
A great first step and all of the above would apply to social security and medicare and any other unconstitutional program that force federal mandates on persons or states, ie, tyranny.
People who do not purchase a home with a mortgage pay more income taxes than those who don't. The judge's thorough survey wasn't very thorough.
“This Court is . . . unpersuaded that [the individual mandate] is a bona fide revenue-raising measure
Unpersuaded? Bona fide? Give that man a crown!