|
Lead
Article:
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE OBAMACARE
MSLF Legal Precedent Is Vital to Court Review
In the weeks following the announcement, in November 2011, that the Supreme Court of the United States will consider the constitutionality of various aspects of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” or ObamaCare, briefing by the parties and amici curiae began and will continue for weeks. After three days of oral arguments in March, the historic ruling will be announced in late June. MSLF, which filed scholarly and hard-hitting friend of the court legal briefs in federal courts across the country as the litigation made its way to the Supreme Court, ensured federal court review with a legal precedent that it won at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Glickman, MSLF won the legal right of citizens to challenge federal actions. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in upholding the ruling of a Florida federal district court that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, relied on the case for its ability to issue its ruling. The Supreme Court’s consideration of National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius and Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the consolidated cases challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, involves, in addition to a decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, a determination of whether the absence of a severability clause dooms the law in its entirety and whether the “penalty” for failure to purchase health insurance is a “tax” that bars federal court consideration of any challenge to the mandate until the tax has been paid and challenged. After ObamaCare became law in March 2010, lawsuits were filed across the country to challenge its constitutionality; most notable among them are the lawsuit filed by twenty seven States, as well as other plaintiffs, led by Florida, and the lawsuit filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. All challenge the individual mandate, as well as other provisions, as conflicting with the Constitution. During the national debate regarding ObamaCare, then-Speaker Pelosi said memorably, regarding the 1,000 pages of legislation that nearly no one had read, “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it . . . .” Over the last two years, a bill the American people thought was bad (54% opposed its passage) became the law that is worse than they had imagined (67% of “mainstream voters” today demand that it be repealed). Then-Speaker Pelosi also thought the question of whether the Commerce Clause limits Congress’s ability to enact laws was laughable; obviously, given the extensive briefings filed and the lengthy opinions issued by various federal courts and the decision by the Supreme Court to rule on the issue, almost no one else shares her view on this important subject. Prior to its enactment, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) claimed that the statute would be revenue neutral; however, in the days and months since, the CBO is less sanguine about its impact on the economy. Moreover, the responses of the marketplace and small businesses reflect a belief that ObamaCare spells disaster for the U.S. economy and for businesses. MSLF argues that America’s embrace of limited government of specific enumerated powers began in the pre-Revolutionary Days, continued through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and has been upheld by the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
|
| More Winter 2012
Articles: |
Additional Articles are Available in the
Adobe PDF Version
|
|
