11th Circuit Appeals Court rules ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional

This is probably the best news you’ll hear all day. Now how about we fast-track this thing to the Supreme Court?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama’s healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.

The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.

The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.

“This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” a divided three-judge panel said.

Obama and his administration had pressed for the law to help halt the steep increases in healthcare costs and expand insurance coverage to the more than 30 million Americans who are without it.

It argued that the requirement was legal under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion.

The majority “has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy,” Marcus wrote.

Many other provisions of the healthcare law are already being implemented.

Isn’t that just lovely. This would be so much easier if Congress would just vote to kill the bill.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous

    11th Cicruit rule = Short Circuit for the “ruler’s” mandate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • ha ha! in yo’ face oblamer.

  • Anonymous

    Glad to hear it. However, not until it reaches the SC will it really matter. The arrogance of this administration went beyond anything we’ve ever seen in our history.
    BOcare is adding to the uncertainty and unemployment across the nation, but does BO and his vile cohorts care? Of course not, why should they? They have theirs, and the rest of us can just get over it.
    Our premiums went up so high and our deductable and co-pays along with it, that now all we have is catostrophic insurance. We CANNOT afford to go to the doctor, even for a cold.
    Thanks, you lousy demoncrats.

  • Anonymous

    Glad to hear it. However, not until it reaches the SC will it really matter. The arrogance of this administration went beyond anything we’ve ever seen in our history.
    BOcare is adding to the uncertainty and unemployment across the nation, but does BO and his vile cohorts care? Of course not, why should they? They have theirs, and the rest of us can just get over it.
    Our premiums went up so high and our deductable and co-pays along with it, that now all we have is catostrophic insurance. We CANNOT afford to go to the doctor, even for a cold.
    Thanks, you lousy demoncrats.

    • Anonymous

      It isn’t just the arrogance of the adminstration. Every Democrat in the Senate voted for this.

      Judge Frank Hull (a woman, BTW), appointed by Clinton and approved by the Senate 96-0 becomes the first Democrat-appointed judge to rule that the government cannot force you to buy a product against your will.

      • Kagan should recuse herself, but she will not.

        • Anonymous

          “Kagan should recuse herself, but she will not.”
          You’re right twice. And twice about the McDonald v Chicago,

          • “Kagan should recuse itself, but he will not.”

            No- I made a mistake, but I fixed it above. :/

            • Anonymous

              LOL

            • Anonymous

              Kagan. Wasn’t that the name of the bad guy in Highlander? She looks a bit like him too.

          • Anonymous

            Actually,like Obama,she’s a criminal.

      • Kagan should recuse herself, but she will not.

      • Anonymous

        Of course, you are absolutley correct, it’s every single demoncrat that is arrogant and “doesn’t believe in human rights”…I like how you put it.

        Thanks for the added info concerning Frank Hull (who names their daughter, Frank?…but, I digress). Seems like it’s only ever the republican appointees that turn out to vote opposite of what was thought.

        Kagan should back off totally, but she’s a liberal, they have no conscience.

        • Anonymous

          They have no brains either.And I hope everyone knows exactly what the liberal philosophy is:
          At the minimum it is a dibolic disorietation of the mind.It’s a mental illness and infected with it, most don’t even recognize it.
          The liberals like to consider themselves open-minded and willing to enter into a dialogue.Actually one of the hallmarks of a liberal is that they have no conscience.
          Actually they are relativists,subjectivist,if you believe in God they don’t,their only truth is lie,they hate morals,respect nothing,hate God, and the list goes on and on.
          Liberals are much, much “worser” than you can imagine.
          It’s very essence is a sin in the theological order.In the philosophical order a grave evil,and in the moral order a stench.

    • Our premiums tripled which we cannot afford. Every day that the sun rises, I can’t stand this fraudulent administration even more. They are outright thieves. I am so looking forward to Nov 2012

      • Anonymous

        I feel bad for you….tripled premiums…ouch! And I agree with your sentiments, with each passing day I’m sickened more by this administration. They’re vile and down right mean if you ask me.
        It takes a mean streak to do what these people are doing to the citizens of America.

      • Anonymous

        They are more than thieves.They make thieves look honest

  • Whhooo hooo! However, I must hold off more cheering until the Bill is KILLED. I know I am ever the optomist 😉 but dear leader has had a record of disregarding Court rulings, has he not?

  • Whhooo hooo! However, I must hold off more cheering until the Bill is KILLED. I know I am ever the optomist 😉 but dear leader has had a record of disregarding Court rulings, has he not?

  • Anonymous

    …REPEAL the dam thing before it even hit’s the SUPREME COURT .(period)

    JUST TO MAKE SURE IT IS DEAD !”

  • Anonymous

    …REPEAL the dam thing before it even hit’s the SUPREME COURT .(period)

    JUST TO MAKE SURE IT IS DEAD !”

    • Anonymous

      We shouldn’t worry but it is only natrual.
      This is an unjust law and therefore no law at all and doesn’t have to be complied with no matter what the SCOTUS says.
      It will take great integrity and courage to refuse to comply

    • Anonymous

      It would be nice to repeal Odummer,Odamner or whatever he is and for him to be permanently repealed as well.

  • Anonymous

    Horray! Now we need to throw out the entire trash legislation!

  • Great news!

    Maybe it could get by the senate now that Obama is hurting politically. Democratic senators could distance themselves from Obama for 2012 plus it looks as though it will be thrown out eventually anyway.

    • Persephone

      Hairy Reed would probably not even let it come up for a vote.

  • Dem chickens be comin’ home to roost!

  • Anonymous

    We can’t depend of the court .When we defund the healthcare bill its over

    • Anonymous

      Assuming the bureacrats won’t work for free, at best, defunding will only put Frankenstein to sleep, awaiting a Democrat majority. In the meantime, there will be various laws on the books requiring states, hospitals, doctors, citizens to do X, Y and Z; laws they won’t be able to comply with because the corresponding gov’t agency is in hibernation.

      • Anonymous

        I agree , but remember the ryno house vote for repeal the hc law but still founding .In the court how many time we win , and them what happen , another court turn back .first defund ,second clean the house and senate again .third a real conservative president , and we cant back on track .I know its not easy .

  • Anonymous

    We can’t depend of the court .When we defund the healthcare bill its over

  • Anonymous

    Rush Limbaugh just hit it even further: part of the fact of this legislation’s existence is due to reconciliation. It was [falsely] marketed as ‘budget neutral’, promising to not increase our obligations. Now, with the mandate that was the primary source of funding for this illegal, un-American program looking at potentially being killed, coupled with the revelation of reams of data being produced stating that ObamaCare will be a costly, COSTLY boondoggle that had a lot of data hidden from those that were assessing its true impact on the nation’s economy, we could be seeing this bill being killed as being no longer budget neutral. ObamaCare might well be transforming into the Hindenburg, going down in flames with all hands, and requiring a “back to the drawing board” in Congress. If that happens, I wouldn’t put money on Obama being able to pull off another illegal coup like that, again.

    Or, long story short, as we say in the Army:

    HOOAH.

    • Anonymous

      I hope he went down in flames so we NEVER hear from him or his likes

    • Anonymous

      I hope he went down in flames so we NEVER hear from him or his likes

  • Anonymous

    Maybe this issue should be on next year’s ballot right there next to BO’s name, so we can vote them both out at the same time!! Way to go 11th circuit.

  • Anonymous

    Judge Marcus’ comment is what really puzzled me. If I may paraphrase: “Sure, it’s not constitutional, but the Fed’s power has grown a lot and people generally accept, so…fine by me.”

    • That is a common problem with Rulings, they tend to focus TOOOOOOO much on case law and not enough on the constitution, so 1 bad ruling and we are stuck with it forever when it should be easly overruled.

      • Anonymous

        Stare decisis doesn’t make sense. Isn’t it dumb? Doesn’t it give judges an inkwell and quill/license to rewrite the constitution? To the dungeon with that! Either you sware to uphold the constitution and nothing short of the constitution or you don’t.

        Precedent? I prefer the correction of past mistakes. Learn from them, don’t expand upon them.

        • Anonymous

          They don’t recognize any mistakes and if they did they wouldn’t correct them.
          Stare decisis is an off the cuff remark which is not to have any influence on the final so called opinion or precedent they hope to set. In their pride and arrogrance they set precedents to show everyone just how bright they are “suppose” to be. Another precedent deduced from a previous erroneous precedent compounds the whole disasterous affair as these prededents on precedents get worser and worser instead of gooder and gooder.
          Opinions never have to be followed when written. All opinions are uncertain.

          Here is what the so called judges think of themselves:

          in Brown v. Allen in 1953, that “|w]e are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”2

          Nice,huh?

          As for opinions they can unsettle men’s minds,bewilder the half learned, mislead the ignorant,undermine the very basis of society,assail the whole moral order of the universe, and these men are fearfully guilty,and a thousand more dangerous to society and are greater criminals even more so than your noted thieves,robbers,burglers,swindlers,murderers,or midnight assassins.

          • Anonymous

            Print-worthy sir. Thanks for this.

        • Anonymous

          They don’t recognize any mistakes and if they did they wouldn’t correct them.
          Stare decisis is an off the cuff remark which is not to have any influence on the final so called opinion or precedent they hope to set. In their pride and arrogrance they set precedents to show everyone just how bright they are “suppose” to be. Another precedent deduced from a previous erroneous precedent compounds the whole disasterous affair as these prededents on precedents get worser and worser instead of gooder and gooder.
          Opinions never have to be followed when written. All opinions are uncertain.

          Here is what the so called judges think of themselves:

          in Brown v. Allen in 1953, that “|w]e are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”2

          Nice,huh?

          As for opinions they can unsettle men’s minds,bewilder the half learned, mislead the ignorant,undermine the very basis of society,assail the whole moral order of the universe, and these men are fearfully guilty,and a thousand more dangerous to society and are greater criminals even more so than your noted thieves,robbers,burglers,swindlers,murderers,or midnight assassins.

        • Anonymous

          They don’t recognize any mistakes and if they did they wouldn’t correct them.
          Stare decisis is an off the cuff remark which is not to have any influence on the final so called opinion or precedent they hope to set. In their pride and arrogrance they set precedents to show everyone just how bright they are “suppose” to be. Another precedent deduced from a previous erroneous precedent compounds the whole disasterous affair as these prededents on precedents get worser and worser instead of gooder and gooder.
          Opinions never have to be followed when written. All opinions are uncertain.

          Here is what the so called judges think of themselves:

          in Brown v. Allen in 1953, that “|w]e are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”2

          Nice,huh?

          As for opinions they can unsettle men’s minds,bewilder the half learned, mislead the ignorant,undermine the very basis of society,assail the whole moral order of the universe, and these men are fearfully guilty,and a thousand more dangerous to society and are greater criminals even more so than your noted thieves,robbers,burglers,swindlers,murderers,or midnight assassins.

      • Anonymous

        And how about rulings based on these wrong opinions or precedents compounding the issue until all truth is obliterated.
        What this has been is propoganda for 200 years made into law by a non legislative body,the courts and particularly the SCOTUS.

    • Anonymous

      There you go…the left summed up in a nutshell. They know it’s wrong, but…hey, what the heck! And this person is living off the tax payers dime for how long???? (screams!)

    • Anonymous

      This was the whole comment:

      The majority “has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy,” Marcus wrote.

      It’s as if it has been estalished by custom and tradition and has the force of law. This comment should puzzle everyone.Congress’ power,with great help from the SCOTUS,has abused and misinterpretated for their own benefit this Clause.Do you think we could be in such financial ruin if they had done things right?What they did was usurp the powers of the Constitution.And apparently and effectively and Marcus is saying this. In other words it is intentional.Just because the power has grown there is nothing to imply their decisions and laws were just or correct.If they had been we wouldn’t be in this well ordered state of choas which doesn’t come about by chance.
      This fool also invoked the fifth amendment.STUPID STUPID STUPID
      They were counting on the American People to trust them to do what is right while we were too busy to notice, going about our own affairs.
      This power he talks of has grown unconstitutionally.
      His reasoning,if you can call it that,is horrifically flawed.How can the Commerce Clause grow from its original intent? But it has hasn’t it.
      If the Commerce Clause means anything it was to better aid States in the performance of absolutely necessary interstate trade.

      James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

      13 Feb. 1829Letters 4:14–15
      For a like reason, I made no reference to the “power to regulate commerce among the several States.” I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

      This is an unjust law and an unjust law is no law at all.

  • Philo Beddoe

    Does this mean that I won’t be taxed on employer provided insurance, and not have to bring my house up to EPA standards and not pay the gov’t 3.8% on the sale of my house?

    I can go buy a used Yamaha now.

    The economy still has no confidence in obamDUH. Now even the court has no confidence.

  • Anonymous

    I’m very pleasantly surprised!

  • Anonymous

    Awesomeness to the fullest. Now it’s time to destroy the whole damn healthcare bill.

    • Anonymous

      And them along with it as a matter of self defense

    • Anonymous

      And them along with it as a matter of self defense

    • Anonymous

      And them along with it as a matter of self defense

  • Anonymous

    I rule Barack Obama unconstitutional

  • Anonymous

    Every time the government “gives” people an increased benefit (and does not fund the mandated increase), all the insured and, in many cases, their empoloyers, pay for the enhanced benefit…whether they want it or will ever use it. And you wonder why they are not hirung here in America?

    Two principles are clear:
    1) those utilizing medical services must have some “skin in the game” to avoid abuse;
    2) one size does not fit all and you can see how absurd it is if you simply consider standardizing auto, home or life insurance without letting purchasers tailor the policies to their individual needs.

    Even if an “individual mandate” made sense…as the state minimums for auto liability coverage (for damage done to others, not yourself), how dare the government mandate beyond a bare bones minimum what the coverage ought to be? Stalin would be proud of these apparatchiks

    • Anonymous

      Well we built the coffin for this O’care thing in Florida, and we put another nail in it, in Georgia. Swish! Swish!!

      4 points for our side.

    • Anonymous

      Couldn’t be better expressed and explained

  • Anonymous

    Every time the government “gives” people an increased benefit (and does not fund the mandated increase), all the insured and, in many cases, their empoloyers, pay for the enhanced benefit…whether they want it or will ever use it. And you wonder why they are not hirung here in America?

    Two principles are clear:
    1) those utilizing medical services must have some “skin in the game” to avoid abuse;
    2) one size does not fit all and you can see how absurd it is if you simply consider standardizing auto, home or life insurance without letting purchasers tailor the policies to their individual needs.

    Even if an “individual mandate” made sense…as the state minimums for auto liability coverage (for damage done to others, not yourself), how dare the government mandate beyond a bare bones minimum what the coverage ought to be? Stalin would be proud of these apparatchiks

  • Joel Dick

    As a courtesy to your readers, can you please stop putting up pictures of that SOB on your home page? If you have to, can you have a warning, so I don’t have to look at that repulsive bastard’s face.

    • Anonymous

      Joel, that’s why God made Pepto Bismol.

      • Joel Dick

        At first I thought that Obomba was naive, idealistic, simplistic, unsophisticated, or simply intellectuality underdeveloped, but I am now convinced that he is deliberately, and maliciously trying to destroy America.

        • Anonymous

          It always warms my heart when someone recognizes reality, welcome Joel.

          • Joel Dick

            Oh, I never liked the guy. I just realize more and more each day that he is not simply mistaken. He is evil.

    • Anonymous

      I certainly am 200% with you. It would be better if he had no face to show around at all.And everyone here supports you as well. You’re right on the dollar.

  • Anonymous

    It’s a real tragedy that the same people who voted him in will vote for him again.The blacks(I’d vote for Herman Cain),the Spainish and illegals,the Catholic(I’m Catholic)vote without which he would have lost(52% of Catholics voted for him),the liberals,Independants?,the malcontents,Hollywood,Ophrah,Dr.Phil or Pill,Sorus,the ACLU,the Bankers,Planned Unparenthood,feminists,the homosexuals or rather their actions and agenda,the abortionists and on and on. A lot to contend with.Nice bunch.