Federal Judge Tosses Obamacare Lawsuit

A Bill Clinton-appointee has essentially declared that the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution can mean anything Congress wants it to mean:

A federal judge in Virginia on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the landmark healthcare law championed by President Barack Obama, upholding key provisions that require health insurance coverage.

The challenge, one of several attempting to strike down the law, was brought by the conservative Christian Liberty University and individuals who said the law would violate several parts of the U.S. Constitution.

However, U.S. District Judge Norman Moon ruled that the law requiring individuals to buy health insurance coverage as well as requiring employers to buy coverage for their employees was legal under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Moon found that without the coverage requirements in the law, the cost of health insurance would increase because the number of insured individuals would decline, "precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act's regulatory measures."

Further, interstate commerce would be hurt by large employers failing to offer adequate healthcare coverage, thus "the employer coverage provision is a lawful exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power," said Moon, who was appointed by then-Democratic President Bill Clinton.

I still expect that this argument will fail before the Supreme Court, but it may be awhile before it gets there. Using this rationale Congress could order you to do just about anything if they can show any possible harm to interstate commerce by your refusal to cooperate. That can't possibly be the true intent of the Commerce Clause (I'm not a lawyer, but geez, isn't there any common sense left in the law?)