TightWind is written by Kyle Baxter. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the Obama administration’shealth care reform’s individual mandate is unconstitutional because it is not covered by the Commerce Clause:

“This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” the panel majority wrote in the 304-page decision.

This is the first appellate court to rule against health care reform, and it’s notable that one of two judges that ruled against it was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

The White House responded with a blog post:

The individual responsibility provision – the main part of the law at issue in these cases – is constitutional. Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us – when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.

Their logic is that the individual mandate—which requires all individuals to purchase health insurance under penalty of law—is constitutional under the commerce clause because it is an economic decision that affects others. That logic is laughably bad.

As I wrote earlier this year, if the only determinant for whether some activity can be regulated is if it has an economic effect on other people, then Congress can effectively regulate anything it chooses. In the aggregate, choosing not to purchase a computer will lead to higher prices for everyone else (because greater economies of scale cannot be reached), and less innovation (because companies have less capital to put toward R&D and less potential profit to justify developing new technologies). If we follow the White House’s logic here, Congress can force every individual in America to purchase a computer, or be fined, to ensure computers are affordably priced and innovation continues.

If that’s the case, there’s very little Congress can’t regulate or compel individuals to do. That’s what the White House is legally justifying. That’s absurd and, worse, it’s dangerous.