The group's assessment shows that Judge Roger Vinson's decision "effectively writes an entire
provision of the Constitution out of the document ..., butchers history," ignores Supreme Court precedent, "and relies on a constitutional theory that George Washington would find shocking."
Tanden, Millhiser and Carrk add:
We also explain that one section of Vinson's opinion was lifted from a brief filed by an organization that has been labeled a hate group. And when Vinson somehow concludes that the Boston Tea Party renders the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, we take apart that argument, too.
Opponents of the landmark health care reform law have peddled the canard that the law's individual coverage provision, which requires some persons to maintain health care insurance starting in 2014, exceeds Congress's constitutional authority to "regulate commerce among the several states." Judge Vinson offers several takes on the extent of the Commerce Clause that essentially ape those pushed by the law's opponents.
On page 28 of the opinion, for example, Judge Vinson of the Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., writes that "for the first century of our history the Clause was seldom invoked by Congress (if at all), and then only negatively to prevent the interference with commerce by individual states." That quote is highlighted in yellow by CAP's interactive assessment. Click on the highlight and the authors expose Vinson's error. "Vinson is wrong: The First Congress enacted a law that viewed the Commerce Clause expansively," noting that it "used its commerce power to enact ‘An Act to Regulate trade and Intercourse with the Indian Tribes,' a law that prohibited ‘any crime upon, or trespass against, the person or property of any peaceable and friendly Indian or Indians.'
Also on page 28, the judge claims that "it was not until 1887, one hundred years after ratification, that Congress first exercised its power to affirmatively and positively regulate commerce among the states." Wrong, again. As CAP's research notes, "The first Congress passed, and President Washington signed, ‘An act for registering and clearing vessels, regulating the coasting trade, and for other purposes,' which required the owners of U.S. ships to register their vessels and even contained special rules governing ships traveling from Baltimore to Philadelphia."
There's plenty more. As the authors note once you take a "deep dive" into their assessment you'll "discover Vinson's opinion is such an outlier that it will not be taken seriously by higher courts." The authors also encourage you to send them errors you may happen upon.
For further examination of Judge Vinson's opinion, check out ACSblog guest posts from Simon Lazarus, author of an ACS Issue Brief on the constitutionality of the law's individual coverage provision, and UCLA law school professor Adam Winkler, available here and here.
In January more than 100 law professors signed a statement reaffirming the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. "Congress's power to regulate the national healthcare market is unambiguous," the professor's statement reads. "Nothing in the Constitution's text, history, or structure suggests that, in exercising its enumerated powers, Congress is barred from imposing reasonable duties on citizens on the theory that such requirements amount to regulating ‘inactivity.'"
purchase coverage.
e separation of church and state are concerned that the provision would amount to federal funding of religious services.
urance, are inaccurately claiming Congress is on the verge subverting the rights of states, says constitutional scholar and law professor Robert A. Schapiro.
lenty to debate over the federal government's efforts to reform the nation's healthcare system, but whether those efforts are constitutional has no place in the discussion says law professor