Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds ObamaCare

AP Photo

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled two-to-one in favor of the federal government in the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama,
challenging the national authority of the government to mandate the
purchase of healthcare insurance.

The Thomas More Law Center case, argued on June 1, was
the second case to be argued at the court of appeals but the first one
decided. The case drew a dissenting opinion that attacked the
far-reaching dangers this law could impose on the American people.

Liberty Counsel’s case, Liberty University v. Geithner,
was argued on May 10, at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision should come any day.

The decision drew three
separate opinions. Judge Martin upheld the law under the Commerce
Clause. Judge Sutton appeared more troubled by the law but,
nevertheless, wrote a separate opinion upholding ObamaCare on the basis
that the case was a facial challenge and not “as applied.”

Under a
facial challenge, the law has to be unconstitutional in every
conceivable application. He found the law could be upheld, for example,
in a state like Massachusetts, where people are mandated under state law
to purchase health insurance. Judge Graham dissented and wrote that the
mandate exceeded congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. All
the judges acknowledged that the mandate was novel, without any prior
historical precedent.

“Today’s ruling is not the final word on ObamaCare. Our case
in Liberty University v. Geithner and others will soon be
decided. Everyone agrees the final round will be fought at the United
States Supreme Court. I am confident that ObamaCare will eventually be
struck down,” says Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of
Law.

“Congress clearly exceeded its authority when it sought to
force every American into the health insurance market by forcing them to
buy insurance from a private party. Such reach by the federal
government is unprecedented and, if allowed, would leave no boundaries
on the government’s power to regulate private decisions. The Founders
would have been astounded. They thought they had left that kind of
centralized government behind when they penned the Constitution.”