Readers can find the full 78-page ruling here (also mirrored at the end of this blog post).
David Kopel of the Independent Institute summarizes and analyzes some of the major points here.
So does Cornell law professor William Jacobson.
As with the Hudson ruling, there will undoubtedly be tons more commentary in the next few days about the legal, political, and philosophical significance. But for now, I wanted to highlight a few passages:
From page 75: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."
And from page 42:
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.(Hat tip to Dr. Matthew Bowdish.)
And from footnote 30, page 76:
I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that "if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."The US Supreme Court will have the final say on this matter.
But for now, America still has a chance...
vinsonruling1 31 11
