The Constitution of the United States grants certain powers to the federal government.
Since President Obama's Health Care Reform Act was passed, many people have questioned whether or not the government has overstepped its bounds by passing this law.
Another lawsuit has been filed in the aftermath of Obamacare, this one in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
26 states filed the lawsuit in Florida, where a judge deemed the overhaul plan to be unconstitutional.
The federal government has appealed the decision, and it is currently being heard by the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
A group of small businesses and individuals are urging the court to uphold the decision which finds this law to be unconstitutional and unenforceable.
The Court consists of two democrats and one republican, all appointed to the Court.
Their biggest concern is that this overhaul plan opens the door for the Federal Government to pass other sweeping mandates that would affect all Americans.
The health care plan hinges on several key factors.
The one that is causing problems in court is the requirement that all people carry health coverage.
The individual mandate requires that all Americans have health insurance or face fines and penalties.
The question asked of the government by Chief Judge Joel Dubina was, "If we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on congressional power?" Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus also expressed this same concern.
The country was founded with a strong belief that power should be split and balanced, to prevent any one group from exerting too much control.
This single piece of legislation could theoretically undermine the balance of power that is central to how the country operates.
The response of the acting US Solicitor Neal Katyal is that health care is unique.
Because it affects millions of people, the government claims that the legislative branch has the power to regulate it because of the substantial effect on the economy.
They claim that their actions will solve a national problem, making this a one-time event and not the start of a country down a slippery slope.
Former US solicitor Paul Clement argues that the government is essentially mandating people to make a commercial transaction, and that crosses the line between solving a problem and exceeding their authority.
Judge Hull doubted that this part of the Health Care Reform Act is truly necessary to the entire package.
She expressed that other parts of the package could compensate for removing the individual health care mandate, including expanding Medicare discounts for seniors and the preexisting medical conditions aspects.
Judges Hull and Dubina also questioned lawyers on both sides as to the effect on the Health Care Reform Act if just this one provision were invalidated in the courts.
Since President Obama's Health Care Reform Act was passed, many people have questioned whether or not the government has overstepped its bounds by passing this law.
Another lawsuit has been filed in the aftermath of Obamacare, this one in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
26 states filed the lawsuit in Florida, where a judge deemed the overhaul plan to be unconstitutional.
The federal government has appealed the decision, and it is currently being heard by the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
A group of small businesses and individuals are urging the court to uphold the decision which finds this law to be unconstitutional and unenforceable.
The Court consists of two democrats and one republican, all appointed to the Court.
Their biggest concern is that this overhaul plan opens the door for the Federal Government to pass other sweeping mandates that would affect all Americans.
The health care plan hinges on several key factors.
The one that is causing problems in court is the requirement that all people carry health coverage.
The individual mandate requires that all Americans have health insurance or face fines and penalties.
The question asked of the government by Chief Judge Joel Dubina was, "If we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on congressional power?" Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus also expressed this same concern.
The country was founded with a strong belief that power should be split and balanced, to prevent any one group from exerting too much control.
This single piece of legislation could theoretically undermine the balance of power that is central to how the country operates.
The response of the acting US Solicitor Neal Katyal is that health care is unique.
Because it affects millions of people, the government claims that the legislative branch has the power to regulate it because of the substantial effect on the economy.
They claim that their actions will solve a national problem, making this a one-time event and not the start of a country down a slippery slope.
Former US solicitor Paul Clement argues that the government is essentially mandating people to make a commercial transaction, and that crosses the line between solving a problem and exceeding their authority.
Judge Hull doubted that this part of the Health Care Reform Act is truly necessary to the entire package.
She expressed that other parts of the package could compensate for removing the individual health care mandate, including expanding Medicare discounts for seniors and the preexisting medical conditions aspects.
Judges Hull and Dubina also questioned lawyers on both sides as to the effect on the Health Care Reform Act if just this one provision were invalidated in the courts.