SD Atty General Marty Jackley released the following statement regarding the ruling yesterday from the Florida judge that found the health care law unconstitutional:
?Improving healthcare is too important to build on an unconstitutional foundation through a process that failed to respect the rights of states and individuals,? stated Attorney General Jackley. ?Today?s Court ruling confirms that Congress? powers are not unlimited, and that individual and state?s rights must be respected. Although an appeal of this decision by the federal government is eminent, the Federal Court has now given Congress direction to bring needed change to our healthcare system within the framework of our Constitution.?
That’s right folks — SD and the other states aren’t suing because health care was perfect before — the states are suing because there can be more sensible way to improve health care.
From the Judge’s Order granting Summary Judgement:
James Madison, the chief architect of our federalist system, once famously observed:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The Federalist No. 51, at 348 (N.Y. Heritage Press ed., 1945) (?The Federalist?)
As Chief Justice Marshall aptly predicted nearly 200 years ago, while everyone may agree that the federal government is one of enumerated powers, ?the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, so long as our system shall exist.? This case presents such a question.
So — from the Conclusion by the Judge
The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate.
Translation — yes we need to fix health care — but the Congress doesn’t have the authority from the Constitution to require people to buy health insurance. So to all the haters out there who erroneously claim conservatives want deny the problems in the health care system — I’ll say it again — you couldn’t be more wrong.