Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida took a major step towards putting an end to the worst and most corrupt law ever when he ruled Monday that Obamacare’s requirement to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.  Whoever didn’t already know that needs to consider the implications of any government body being able to require the public to purchase a product or a service.

And before you throw out the, “my state requires I purchase car insurance,” argument, give it some thought.  Are you required to purchase insurance, or does the state require your motor vehicle to be covered by a policy that provides liability coverage in case you mow someone down?  That is what auto insurance is all about.  Any additional coverage you may have is based on personal choice or the requirement of a lender.

Judge Vinson argued that the mandate is an “unprecedented” exercise of federal power because it regulates a lack of economic activity, not economic activity itself.  In layman’s terms this means the commerce clause of the constitution was designed to allow the government to control the interstate sale of a product or service.  It was not intended, nor worded, to allow the government to impose the requirement to purchase a product or a service.  Imagine if this were to be allowed where it could lead…

…the government owns a large percent of GM.  So, if the government felt that it was in the best interests of the taxpayers, as stockholders of GM, that they should buy GM cars and not Japanese vehicles; would you want them to have that kind of control?  What if the government required you purchase a membership in a health club, cause it might lower your health care costs?  What if the government could require you use the USPS Express Mail, rather than UPS or Fedex?  Interesting how the party of “choice” wants to control those choices, isn’t it?

Vinson is the second federal judge to rule Obamacare unconstitutional after a federal district court judge in Virginia ruled the same late last year. Two other judges have upheld the law.  However, Vinson went one step further and stated what the 26 states involved in the law suit have known.  Obamacare does not include a severability clause.  A severability clause allows for one part of a law to be thrown out but leave the remainder of the bill intact.  Without a severability clause, any part of the law found to be unconstitutional requires the entire law be voided.  And this is exactly what Vinson stated, ruling that since the requirement to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional the entire law fails.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say on the matter.  However as the process moves forward towards enacting portions of the law, you encounter the possibility of rolling back services or benefits already being provided to the public.  For this reason alone, the Supreme Court needs to act on this law as soon as possible; which they can.  The Supreme Court has the ability to reach down into the appellate courts and seize a matter, effectively short-circuiting the process, if they believe that it is warranted.  If there was ever a reason to do so, this would be it.