Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will challenge health care legislation as unconstitutional
San Antonio Headlines Examiner ^ | March 22, 2010 | Jack Dennis

Posted on 03/22/2010 5:46:36 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced on March 22, 2010, the State will be joining other states in challenging the health-care reform legislation that passed in the U.S. House last night 219-212.

"The federal health care legislation passed tonight violates the United States Constitution and unconstitutionally infringes upon Texans' individual liberties," said Abbott.

"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," Abbott announced.

Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's office also confirmed they will file suit against the federal government indicating the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional.

Abbott is expected to argue that the legislation, with a requirement that nearly every American has to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

After President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, expected to be as early as Tuesday, several Attorney Generals have said they would file suits.

"At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service," Cuccinelli said in a release on March 22, 2010.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; History; Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: 111th; abbott; abortion; ag; aglawsuits; attorneygeneral; barackobama; bho44; bhohealthcare; bill; billmccollum; congress; constitution; godblesstexas; greg; gregabbott; healthcare; henry; henrymcmaster; lawsuit; mccollum; mcmaster; obama; obamacare; scotus; socialism; socialisthealthcare; states; statesrights; taxes; texas; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: Chong

I want no part of disolving the United States. I want it all back and the Commies out, and on trial for Treason.

If Texas were to remove itself, it would not be simply Texas to go. You can count in the Okies and a lot more. It will not happen, but we will defeat these cretin.

21 posted on 03/22/2010 6:35:58 AM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: a real Sheila

do we have legal standing now to challenge his citizenship now that Obama has (will) signed a bill that MANDATES we buy health insurance

22 posted on 03/22/2010 6:37:24 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mtrott

Oh, don’t get me wrong!
I AGREE that there IS legitimate legal standing, but I also thought that was the case with the birth certificate issue as every citizen in this country is affected and HURT by the actions of a man who may not be a legal citizen!
But the courts shut it down and said “no legal standing.”
So, I figure the same thing will happen with this issue as well.
Still, we must fight!

23 posted on 03/22/2010 6:39:55 AM PDT by a real Sheila (REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Why can’t we join the suit (class action)? Certainly the people who are being forced to do this have standing, don’t we?

24 posted on 03/22/2010 6:42:11 AM PDT by texgal (end no-fault divorce laws return DUE PROCESS & EQUAL PROTECTION to ALL citizens))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: a real Sheila
Greg Abbot?:

25 posted on 03/22/2010 6:43:32 AM PDT by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
Clearly, among the LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers of Congress spelled out in Article 1 Section 8, there is no provision for them forcing citizens to insure themselves or buy any other type of product or service.

Regulation of interstate commerce is not ‘the camel nose under the tent’, it is not ‘Archimedes lever that can move the world’, it is not a hammer that turns all problems into nails. It is a provision for Congress to mediate between the States in regards to regulating commerce.

It is well beyond time that the SCOTUS reigns in this abuse of the commerce clause such that there is NO activity by any citizen in any State that is theoretically free from Congressional regulation for its potential and/or tangential effect upon interstate commerce.

26 posted on 03/22/2010 6:44:47 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dasaji

“Makes sense. But we are also “forced” to buy “services” of the government through confiscation of payroll taxes as in income taxes, FICA, et. al....simply because of our mere existence.”

No, that is not analagous, because no one can force you to work. Those taxes result from your free decision to work. If you choose to not work and just be destitute, you are free to do so. That is freedom. This is not.

27 posted on 03/22/2010 6:50:00 AM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

email I just sent to Mr. Abbott:

Mr. Abbott,

Thank you so much for your decision to challenge the unconstitutional health care bill passed yesterday. I support you enthusiastically in this.

Why is this unconstitutional? There has to be some limit to what tyranny they can lump under the Commerce Clause and get away with it. By claiming the authority to issue an individual mandate to purchase a product against a citizen’s will, they assert or claim federal OWNERSHIP over the individual. There is no other way around it. This creates a relationship of servitude to the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to force individuals to buy a product or service. No one should be a slave of either an individual or the government.

Besides, if they are allowed the power to force this behavior as a condition of one’s existence, there will be NO LIMIT to what they can force individuals to do. What will it be next? Will they devise a bill to force us to purchase what they consider healthy food? Safe, or efficient cars? They could cloak anything under their expansive view of the Commerce Clause.

This must not be allowed to stand, or I fear they will become even more drunk with power and their “noble” egalitarian zeal. Who knows what will be next?

28 posted on 03/22/2010 6:51:51 AM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dasaji
Makes sense. But we are also “forced” to buy “services” of the government through confiscation of payroll taxes as in income taxes, FICA, et. al....simply because of our mere existence.

That was my initial thought as well, but it's not 100% accurate. You only pay income tax if you have income. You only pay property taxes if you own property.

This bill forces you to pay taxes for merely existing. How are they going to enforce this tax on the homeless?
29 posted on 03/22/2010 6:53:00 AM PDT by ConservativeWarrior (In last year's nests, there are no birds this year.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Fly that Bonnie Blue!!!

30 posted on 03/22/2010 7:07:12 AM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I think I have heard several plausible counts in making the law unconstitutional.

The 9th and 10th Amendments - not an enumerated power of the federal government.

The 10th Amendment - unfunded mandates.

The 13th Amendment - involuntary servitude forcing the purchase of insurance.

The 5th Amendment - taking property without just compensation.

Special deals made to pass tantamount to bribery.

Violates the Commerce Clause as it regulates a non-transaction (not buying insurance) [the flip side of the 5th Amendment I guess]

This is a punitive tax and therefore a revenue gainer and should be proposed in the House, not the Senate. [Congress could evade all constitutional limits by “taxing” anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind]

I have heard all these tossed about and it will be interesting to see if the USSC will at least rule on one of them. Favorably to the citizens of this country.

31 posted on 03/22/2010 7:18:39 AM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: a real Sheila

How can any citizen of the United States of America have “no legal standing” with our own Supreme Court? That makes no sense whatsoever, but it is merely a symptom of the larger malady.

As for calling a constitutional convention, be careful what you wish for. We have a great constitution with an amendment process that works; we merely need to hold our elected officials to the letter and spirit of it.

My fears for a new constitutional convention are twofold: one, that the Saul Alinsky crowd will show up in droves to overload the proceedings, bogging it down with rhetoric and procedure, or simply intimidating our representatives in the same way they currently do so.

Second, who here doubts that our rights would be traded for false security in the name of keeping us safe? I can see the first and second amendments, for instance, being chucked out the window in favor of “security” measures. Do not think that “they” would never do that; we never thought that “they” would compel us, through the force of law, to purchase a good or service.

Progressives want a new constitutional convention. They crave it, for they are sure that their tactics would work, yet again, to bring about their ideal state. I am not at all certain the outcome would preserve liberty and the rule of law as we once knew it. We have a constitution; use it.

This is dangerous ground we tread.

32 posted on 03/22/2010 7:20:53 AM PDT by ronnyquest (There's a communist living in the White House! Now, what are you going to do about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mtrott; allmendream

Thanks! Abbott also has a Twitter account that I joined.

33 posted on 03/22/2010 8:17:33 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler; Russ; jessduntno; 70th Division

The Democrats also lied and scammed. On Saturday, they said that they had the votes, but it was NOT until Sunday that they swung the deal with Stupak and his pro-life DemocRats to actually get the votes needed.

34 posted on 03/22/2010 10:22:21 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

They only lie when their lips are moving.

35 posted on 03/22/2010 10:24:21 AM PDT by 70th Division (I love my country but fear my government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 70th Division

Or when they are breathing.

You wrote-

“They only lie when their lips are moving.”

36 posted on 03/22/2010 10:50:00 AM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

Actually...I think it is Stupak who lied about NOT voting for it. It was all a show.

37 posted on 03/22/2010 10:54:16 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson