« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

More judicial Obamacare salvoes this week.

There are two cases in Florida and Virginia expected to be decided this week over the constitutionality of Obamacare.  The underlying issue is whether the US Constitution gives Congress the right to force its citizens to engage in commerce (specifically, whether Congress can mandate individuals to buy health insurance).  Which, the last time I checked, it does not; and while I understand that Obamacare’s remaining defenders are obligated to argue otherwise, I am not particularly obligated to treat either them or their argument more seriously than is merited.  In this case, that means: not at all.

The real issue here is not whether the individual mandate is thrown out – even the administration is tacitly admitting that it may not survive scrutiny – but whether the individual mandate can be declared unconstitutional without immediately invalidating the rest of the legislation.  There is an issue called ‘severability‘ that is germane here: the short version is that if one portion of a piece of legislation is declared unconstitutional, then the entire law is supposed to be thrown out unless there’s specific language indicating otherwise.  Said language never made it into Obamacare, thanks to the stellar parliamentary skills of Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Reid.  It’s not a slam dunk – I’ve had actual attorneys tell me that the Supreme Court has shown a reluctance to be that hard-nosed about severability – but it’s something to keep an eye on.

The Virginia court decision is expected for tomorrow: the results should be interesting.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

COMMENTS

  • bk

    The Volokh Conspiracy piece says that the White House said that “courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as possible.” Is that correct?

    IANAL, but it seems to me that the court is supposed to rule on whatever the question before them is. Is it their job – absent the severability wording – to go through the other couple thousand pages and decide what’s good and what’s not? I’d think that’s Congress’s job.

    If some judge were to rule that a) this part is unconstitutional but b) the rest can stand, I could see CJ Roberts jumping all over that one given how narrowly he likes to rule.

  • jdmans

    How is it possible that the most brilliant ex-attorney to ever live forgot to tell Harry Reid/Pelosi to put in a severability clause in the HR 3590 health reform bill

    Probably because the only real legal work Obama ever did was to represent the highly unethical ACORN or workas a community organizer

  • republicanconscience

    What ever happened to we are all equal under the law? There are so many exceptions for one state or another, one religious group or another, unions, etc. The bill should be all inclusive or all exclusive no exceptions giving favorable treatment to any one individual, group, class, or state. The Congress represents ALL the people and has no business making special deals, bribing one group or another, one congressman or another. The whole bill must be Unconstitutional!