The Freedom Bulletin

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, have both been in the news recently – DOMA because the Obama administration announced on Thursday that they would no longer defend it against lawsuits, and the ACA because a judge upheld its constitutionality against a religious-freedom-based challenge a week ago. Other than that, these two laws don’t have much in common. But this made me think, why did the Obama administration decide DOMA was unconstitutional while enthusiastically defending the constitutionality of the ACA?

DOMA defines marriage as between one man and one woman and, as a result, denies same-sex spouses of federal employees some benefits that are given to opposite-spouses. The Obama administration decided it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As Attorney General Eric Holder wrote, “The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus that the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

The Democrats’ health reform law, the ACA,  makes it illegal (for the vast majority of people) not to buy health insurance, and punishes people who disobey this requirement with fines. The Justice Department’s website has a prominent page dedicated to its “vigorous” defense of the law in federal courts.

Why does the Obama administration believe Obamacare is constitutional but DOMA is not? DOMA merely stops some people from partaking in a benefit offered through their spouse’s employment with the federal government. It might be fairer if both same-sex and opposite-sex couples  were offered the same benefits, but (a) the fairest thing for gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, married, and unmarried people would be not to offer benefits to spouses at all but only to actual employees; and (b) people don’t have a fundamental right to government-given health benefits based on their spouse’s employment. The ACA, on the other hand, outlaws the decision to opt away from health insurance and instead pay for all of one’s health services oneself. In other words, it takes away the ability to spend one’s own money as one chooses, which is a fundamental right.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow people to form whatever romantic relationships they want (or none at all) without government labels or interference, and to choose whether to buy insurance or pay for health services in cash? I sure think so, but I guess that’s just me.

I spent all of yesterday on a train which had no WiFi, and as a result I missed out on some truly awesome news. Why, you may ask? I had to travel for work, and I decided I would rather have a long, somewhat boring train ride than be subjected to pat-downs or virtual strip searches. I don’t regret my decision at all, and despite the lack of WiFi, I would recommend it to anyone. The satisfaction of acting according to my beliefs far outweighs the inconvenience. Go Amtrak! 

Enough about me. Now for the news: Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida ruled yesterday that the individual mandate is unconstitutional! Not only that, but he threw out the entirety of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, going even further than Judge Henry Hudson of Virgina, who in December also called the mandate unconstitutional.

He didn’t seem thrilled about his own ruling, but he did the right thing:

“I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate…Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’”

He also wrote:

“It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause…It is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.”

This is a victory for Florida and the other 25 states that sued the federal government over Obamacare (and really, all people who love freedom). Unfortunately, however, the federal government is appealing, and this issue is all but certain to eventually wind up in the Supreme Court.

Read the whole (long) opinion (PDF).

As everyone knows, the House of Representatives voted yesterday to repeal the health non-reform bill. All 242 Republicans voted for the repeal, as well as Democrats Mike Ross, Dan Boren, and Mike McIntyre. Although, sadly, the repeal has little chance of passing the Senate or overcoming President Obama’s veto, all who voted for the repeal yesterday should be commended for standing up for individual rights. Here are a couple of my least favorite and favorite moments related to yesterday’s vote.

Least favorites:

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) said on the House floor, “They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie, just like Goebbels. You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie and eventually people believe it.” So after Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement have been dragged through the mud for the past week and a half for using “divisive” military metaphors, a Democrat compares his opponents to a Nazi propagandist. Nice.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) argued that the “pursuit of happiness” part of the Constitution (it’s actually the Declaration of Independence) justifies the health non-reform bill. “I think people should be required to get health insurance,” he said. What about people who decide that it would make them happier to pay separately for each health procedure they receive than to buy health insurance?

David Lazarus of the LA Times compares the GOP to “a bunch of spoiled children throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get their way” and tells them to have “the maturity to deal with the new status quo and move on” and to ”Deal with it. Work with it. Grow up already.” So let me get this straight: Lazarus thinks it is mature to accept whatever happens to be the current policy, regardless of how good or bad it is? I’m not sure what a person’s age has to do with any of this, but if by maturity he means mindlessness and cowardice, then he might make sense. What is the point of having a legislature (or a brain for that matter) if you aren’t supposed to debate whether a policy is good or bad? Unfortunately, the previous Congress decided to pass a law that violates the rights of every single person in the United States. The best way to deal with such a law is to get rid of it.

Favorites:

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said (above), that by passing the health non-reform bill, “We broke with some of our finest traditions – limited government, personal responsibility, and most profoundly the consent of the governed.” I love this speech!

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said (above), “Anybody who contends that Obamacare would save jobs and money must be an Enron accountant.”

And finally, in other Obamacare-related news, there are now 27 states suing the federal government over the health non-reform bill. Hooray!

Edit: I should mention that Rep. Pence’s speech above is from two weeks ago. His (also awesome) speech from Wednesday can be heard here, along with those of other Republicans (and some Democrats).

I’m sure you’ve heard the wonderful news that Judge Henry Hudson ruled the individual mandate – the part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires almost all Americans to buy health insurance – unconstitutional. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute writes, “Today is a good day for liberty,” and I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The federal government’s logic in requiring people to buy insurance, Hudson wrote,

“…could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence…

“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market. In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I.”

This ruling was in the case Virginia v. Sebelius, a lawsuit that Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s Attorney General, brought against the U.S. in the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The feds will probably appeal, and the case is likely headed to the Supreme Court. A couple of judges have made the opposite ruling in other cases, and there are similar lawsuits going on, including one by Florida and 19 other states, so the fight is far from over. But none of that diminishes the greatness of today’s ruling.

Read more about the awesome news:

• Full text of the ruling (PDF)
• CNN: Virginia judge rules health care mandate unconstitutional
• Fox News: Virginia Attorney General Hails Ruling Against Health Care Law
• HealthCareLawsuits.org – a great site chronicling all of the anti-Obamacare lawsuits

December 14 update: The Boston Herald had some great coverage today of this ruling and its implications in Massachusetts:

• Critics eye Mass. Health after Obamacare ruling
• Tea Party claims win with ruling
• Michael Merlina, the Massachusetts man who is suing the state for its individual mandate, says “We need people to stand up for us.”
• Court battle casts pall over Mitt Romney run

Good news for anyone who is opposed to the individual mandate requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance. Virginia’s lawsuit against the mandate has taken a step forward, as a judge gave it the okay to proceed today. From Fox News:

“U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said he is allowing the suit against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it’s constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product.

‘While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and tax — a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce,’ Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision.”

I sure hope the lawsuit succeeds. If judges still care about the Constitution, it will. Although the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, it does not allow the government to force people to engage in commerce.

On Tuesday, Missourians will vote on a ballot measure to outlaw the individual mandate, the part of health insurance reform that requires all Americans, except those who are unable to afford it, to have health insurance. From Missourians for Health Care Freedom, the organization that supports the initiative…

“Patients should have the right to pay directly for medical services with their own money. That’s because when consumers control the dollars, the patient makes the medical treatment decisions… Preserving the rights of patients to pay directly for medical care ensures that patients – not government bureaucrats – decide which doctor to see or what medical treatment to choose.”

Support Proposition C!

I was reading a post at the CNN Political Ticker about an NAACP resolution to condemn the “racism” of the Tea Party movement. The post quoted Mark Williams, a spokesman for the Tea Party Express, who made a really good point:

“It’s the Obama administration that rolled back civil rights to a pre-civil rights era with ‘Obamacare’ in which they removed the concept of individual rights…it’s the Obama administration that put a tax on white people with a tanning salon tax.”

I never thought of that before, but it makes sense.

Suppose that there was a product that was used almost exclusively by black or Hispanic people. Then suppose that the government decided to tax it. Wouldn’t the NAACP and lots of other people and organizations call this racist?

Tanning salons are used predominantly by white people, and the Democrats’ version of health reform puts a tax on them. Why is no one calling this racist?

Is it just me, or is there a double standard here?