States Prepare To Sue Feds
by Big Dog on Mar 23, 2010 at 04:55 Political
Looks like some of the states of these United States have decided to sue the federal government over the recently passed health care takeover bill. Virginia, Florida and at least seven other states are preparing lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of the insurance mandate the bill contains.
By the year 2014 the federal government will require all people here to buy health insurance. It will be the first time in history that an American has to purchase something to be a citizen in good standing.
The lawsuit from Virginia will contend that forcing people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and is not regulated by the oft abused Commerce Clause. Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli put it very simply:
“If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce,” Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. “If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?” al-Reuters
He is, of course, correct but whether the courts will see it that way is another thing all together. It is possible that the courts will say the government can require us to buy insurance to have good standing in this country even though this runs contrary to the freedoms our Founders fought so hard to obtain and preserve. Then again, freedom is always only one generation away from extinction and this generation, the Obama generation, is hell bent on taking freedom away.
The other issue is that Virginia passed a law that states its citizens cannot be compelled to buy health insurance. This directly contradicts the federal mandate and will lead to a Tenth Amendment battle. While federal law usually trumps state law the federal government’s law must be Constitutional.
Also, the Constitution specifically states [paraphrase] that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution does not give the government power to force people to buy something. It regulates commerce but commerce involves voluntary buying something. As was stated, if you choose not to buy something then there is no commerce.
This is a key part of the legislation because the expected revenue from the mandate is designed to offset covering those with preexisting conditions.
The issue will be interesting because the federal government will claim it has the right to control the states insurance because insurance is commerce but the federal government regulates interstate commerce and insurance companies are prohibited from selling across state lines.
This will likely be an interesting legal challenge that will have an impact for a long time to come. If the court decides the federal government can force you to buy something what will they force us to buy next? Maybe they will say we have to buy GE solar panels before we can own a home. Maybe they will say we have to buy a GM if we want a car.
I can’t imagine the courts will allow this to stand but then again, the SCOTUS allowed private land to be taken for private industry gain which runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment which only allows private property to be taken for public use with just compensation.
I can’t wait to see how this all plays out.
No matter what, the debate over the health care issue will not be settled this week.
If this is allowed I can’t wait to see all the snot nosed kids who voted for Obama when they realize that the law they pushed so hard for does not provide free health care.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, florida, health care, lies, virginia
One way Bush can redeem himself on this issue is if his two SCOTUS judges play a role. Otherwise Bush’s failure will be complete. His poor leadership and agenda helped build two massive Democratic majorities to get this thing done.
They will certainly have a role and if they come down on the side of the OCnstitution will you object? What if the lib justices join in that?
Oh wait, I know how you feel. You already said that you did not care how it passed as long as it did. Ends justifies the means and all that Alinsky stuff.
Do you really have to fib like that? I have never called for illegal passage of the bill and you know it.
I have however supported passage through means you incorrectly label illegal. That is your point of confusion. There is nothing illegal about what Democrats have done so far or planned to do on health care reform.
I have said the end justifies the means as far as damage to the Democratic majority. The Democrats should pass health care at the expense of their majority because it is the right thing to do and if they lose seats because of it so be it. That has nothing to do with breaking the law to pass the bill and I have called for no such thing.
If the court rules part or all of the bill unconstitutional then I will be disappointed of course but that’s the way it works. I doubt highly any such thing will happen to prevent this health care bill from being law.
Is it just me or does now more than ever seem like the wrong time for Obama to have picked a fight with the Supreme Court?
Roberts: “So, which case are we going to look at today?”
Scalia: “Oh, I have a suggestion!”
🙂
And for the second straight day the markets responded to the beginning of the end of America…by continuing to rise. As usual this is bad news for the Democrats.
Think long term Adam. The market has been doing fairly well for a few weeks and will likely continue for a while. Once this is all fleshed out we will see at that time. When Cat is paying 100 million more a year and Zoll is paying the taxes on its medical equipment (about 7.5 mil) we will see how things flesh out.
Don’t forget we have inflation on the way.
It’s always an “Obama bear market” when it’s on the decline for whatever reasons stupid conservative pundits cook up to blame it on but when it’s on the rise it’s from other factors of course. Funny.
But then again maybe Hannity and Limbaugh aren’t trying that hard anymore. They just have the outrage meter pegged…
You have not seen anything yet.
I guess the outrage meter can just snap off it’s peg and spin around and around?
I watched a bit of Beck on Monday just for fun. I was hoping he would take the outrage to the next level and just put a gun in his mouth on TV. What a legacy. That would show some outrage.
I used to listen to him a bit on the radio. He has dumbed the material down considerably. Well, it is Fox. He was always shifty and dishonest with language but at least he was adlibing and there was some creativity involved. Now he is reading text and making up the emotion as he goes. What really stood out was that it was really, really, astonishingly stupid.
Jon Stewart tried to parody him the other day but I couldn’t watch it. He made some faces and cried a bit, it didn’t work. Beck can’t be made fun of. For those who know, he’s funny enough. For those who don’t… well, I have no idea how someone couldn’t see through Beck’s material.
D.
—————-
“I said, ‘Let’s start doing some Glenn Beck stuff but in praise of Glenn Beck,'” said Colbert. “But every time we do one, he will have done something dumber. He raised the stupid bar and now it’s nearly inapproachable.”
“…if somebody doesn’t believe what they’re saying, it’s very hard to out-stupid them,” said a decidedly analytical Colbert. “Because then there’s no place to sink our hook into, there’s no mountain to climb there. I can’t climb Glenn Beck since there’s nothing there.” –The Atlantic
Isolate and attack. Nice Alinsky. Won’t work.
No one said that. The reality is the market has been going up and the health care stuff takes place over time. Let’s wait and see.
Funny, when Bush was in the market was at 14,000 and that was bad to you guys.
No one said what? Hannity didn’t call it an Obama bear market but then ignore it when it started to rise? I bet we could find Limbaugh doing it too.
As for Bush, it being 14,093 might have been better had it not taken so long to climb to that (5 years) from a low of 7,528 and if it hadn’t plummeted even lower somehow to 6,626 shortly after.
When I said no one I was referring to me. I have no idea what hannity or Rush said.
Bigd: “Funny, when Bush was in the market was at 14,000 and that was bad to you guys.”>>
DAR
Not funny. I owned stock in Bush’s crappy market.
Rush railed against Clinton’s market as it rose 330%. I have an acquaintance that listened to Rush and the whole bunker mentality of the time. He consistently bet against Clinton’s market and lost his shorts. Then he got divorced.
Bush’s market *declined* 20%. An astonishing failure and resulting in the worst stock record for a decade, ever.
D.
—————
“In nearly 200 years of recorded stock-market history, no calendar decade has seen such a dismal performance as the 2000s.
Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress. Since the end of 1999, stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange have lost an average of 0.5% a year thanks to the twin bear markets this decade….
This past decade looks even worse when the impact of inflation is considered.”
Link.
Yeah, that market dropped when Democrats took control of Congress. Clinton’s market went up when Republicans took control of Congress.
“Bush’s crappy market”? I suppose that 14,000 was not a good figure, but 10,000 is?
Wow! I want to play poker with you- you will lose EVERY time with logic like that.
From 2000- 2006 (the primary Bush years) the market expanded- it was only when the Proggressive, traitorous Dems got into Congress, that the fall began.
Did Bush do everything right? God, no- bubt compared to lil’ Barry Soetoro, he is much better-
The mass media can yep it up all they want and downplay the states filing suit against the Federal Government. Do I have to get out my time machine and take anyone back to 1862? Do I have to remind you that you have been brainwashed by history as to the real cause for the start of the civil war. Yes, slavery was bad. I am not going there. But it was not the cause of the civil war as many of you erroneously believe. It was a propaganda tool that was introduced long after the causes for the start of the civil war had arisen. It was a skillful tool because as we all know the South is referred to as the Bible Belt, and any moral cause was the perfect choice to divide and conquer. If you learned anything from your history professors in college, you would have learned that every war has either one of two causes, economic or religious, and then some will acknowledge that the religious wars are an economic war wrapped in religion. So it boils down to economics.
IN CASE YOU DIDN’T KNOW, THE CIVIL WAR STARTED BECAUSE OF UNFAIR TAXES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS PLACING ON COTTON EXPORTS, THE SOUTH’S PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME. Go to the library, the internet, really dig deep, and prove me wrong. Or, alternatively, you can continue to drink the kool-aid and just ask your child’s history teacher.
Sound familiar. UNFAIR TAXES IMPOSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE STATES CAUSED AMERICA’S ONLY INTERNAL WAR IN HISTORY. Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.
Once again, it’s not about black or white, but it is about color. The color red. The color of Marxism.
Good points Lisa. We need our revolution to be a peaceful one at the ballot box.