ACLJ Memorandum on the Florida Ruling

February 4th, 2011 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Archives No Responses
Judge  Roger Vinson, a Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Florida, has determined that ―The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act‖ (―the Act‖) is
unconstitutional.
1
Judge Vinson begins his opinion by reiterating the importance of the federalist
system.  In framing the question before the  court, Vinson emphasized that this question is not
necessarily about the health care system, but about the  federalist system and the ―very important
issues regarding the Constitutional role of the Federal government.‖
2
Supporting this thesis,
Vinson quotes Federalist 51 and the 10th Amendment, articulating the Framers intent of a limited
federal government.
3
Vinson states:  ―Rather than being the mere historic relic of a bygone era, the
principle behind a central government with limited power has ‗never been more relevant than in
this day, when accretion, if not actual accession, of power to the federal government seems not
only unavoidable, but even expedient.‘‖
4
After motions to dismiss, two issues remained:   (1)
whether the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause (Count I) and (2)  ―[whether] [t]he
expansion of Medicaid violates the Spending Clause and principles of federalism protected under
the 9th and 10th Amendments‖ (Count IV).
5

Judge  Roger Vinson, a Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, has determined that ―The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act‖ (―the Act‖) is unconstitutional.1  Judge Vinson begins his opinion by reiterating the importance of the federalist system.  In framing the question before the  court, Vinson emphasized that this question is not necessarily about the health care system, but about the  federalist system and the ―very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the Federal government.‖2Supporting this thesis, Vinson quotes Federalist 51 and the 10th Amendment, articulating the Framers intent of a limited federal government.3Vinson states:  ―Rather than being the mere historic relic of a bygone era, the principle behind a central government with limited power has ‗never been more relevant than in this day, when accretion, if not actual accession, of power to the federal government seems not only unavoidable, but even expedient.‘‖4  After motions to dismiss, two issues remained:   (1) whether the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause (Count I) and (2)  ―[whether] [t]he expansion of Medicaid violates the Spending Clause and principles of federalism protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments‖ (Count IV).5

(read the entire memo)