The three U.S. Appellate Court judges who today heard the federal government’s appeal of the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health care law, were all appointed by Democratic Presidents. In fact, two of three judges — all selected at random — were appointed by President Obama himself.

Why is this important? So far all the rulings made on the constitutionality of the new health care law – 12 in all – have correlated directly to which party’s president – Republican or Democrat – appointed them. The three-judge panel is effectively a royal flush because the Fourth Circuit is comprised of Republican appointees by a ratio of nearly 3-to-1. While not a certainty, it appears likely Hudson’s ruling will be overturned and appealed to the Supreme Court by the Commonwealth of Virginia from a losing position.

Joe Trauger is vice president for human resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida has struck down the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. In his ruling, available here, Judge Vinson held that the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to regulate “inactivity,” the authority claimed to apply the individual mandate.

His ruling does not suspend implementation of the law, however.

This is the suit brought by the states — originally 20, now up to 26 — and the National Federal of Independent Business. The NFIB issued a release, “Judge Rules Healthcare Law Unconstitutional: NFIB, 26 states prevail in lawsuit against federal healthcare law“:

Washington, D.C., January 31, 2011—In a highly anticipated decision in the lawsuit brought by the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states, federal district Judge Roger Vinson ruled today that the individual mandate in the healthcare law is unconstitutional and that this provision can not be severed from the rest of the healthcare law.

“NFIB is extremely pleased with Judge Vinson’s decision,” said Karen Harned, executive director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center. “NFIB joined this case to protect the rights of small-business owners to own, operate and grow their businesses free from unnecessary government intervention. The individual mandate, which forces citizens to purchase government approved health insurance, undermines this core principle and gives the federal government entirely too much power. We are delighted Judge Vinson agreed with NFIB and the states on this critical issue.”

Media coverage immediately jumped to the political implications of the decision, but the judge’s ruling warrants close reading before the specularama takes over. John O’Brien at the Chamber-backed Legal Newsline does so in his report, “Judge strikes down ObamaCare in ‘difficult decision’.” He cites key passages in which Judge Vinson explains why he struck down the entire law and not just the individual mandate.

Because the mandate is too integral a part to be separated, Vinson voided the entire legislation. He called it “a difficult decision to reach.”

“If Congress intends to implement health care reform — and there would appear to be widespread agreement across the political spectrum that reform is needed — it should do a comprehensive examination of the Act and make a legislative determination as to which of its hundreds of provisions and sections will work as intended without the individual mandate, and which will not,” he added. (continue reading…)

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was the first attorney general out of the box this morning to announce litigation against the health care bill President Obama plans to sign into law. Cuccinelli’s argument is a straightforward one challenging the constitutionality of an individual mandate. Excerpt from Cuchinelli’s statement:

With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce. We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.

Virginia is in a unique situation that allows it the standing to file such a suit since Virginia is the only state so far to pass a law protecting its citizens from a government-imposed mandate to buy health insurance. The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia. Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.

Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do. There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services.

Washington Post, March 11, “Va. assembly approves bill to bar health-insurance mandate”
Heritage Foundation, Dec. 9, 2009, “The Individual Mandate in Obamacare is Unconstitutional“