Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State Attorney Generals Agree To File Constitutional Challenge To Obamacare Immediately
Centristnetblog.com ^ | March 22, 2010 | Centrist Blog

Posted on 03/21/2010 11:12:58 PM PDT by Blonde

In late breaking news this evening after the historic passage of Obamacare through the House of Representatives by Democrats over bipartisan opposition, many state attorney generals held a conference call in which it was decided that they would file a multi-state suit alleging the newly-passed Obamacare is unconstitutional immediately after President Barack Obama signs the act, which is expected on early next week. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott broke the news on his Facebook page:

Just got off the AG conference call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights.

While the entire roster of claims regarding unconstitutionality is obviously unknown at this time, it appears that a central focus of the initial immediate filing (which will undoubtedly be amended several times) will be whether the individual mandate, which requires American citizens to purchase health insurance from private insurers, is a constitutional exercise of the federal government’s proscribed powers. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced late Sunday night after the conference call that Virginia planned on joining the multi-state litigation against Obamacare:

Virginia will file suit against the federal government charging that the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office confirmed last night.

(Excerpt) Read more at centristnetblog.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 111th; ag; aglawsuits; bhofascism; bhohealthcare; bhotyranny; cuccinelli; democrats; lawsuit; obamacare; statesrights; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

1 posted on 03/21/2010 11:12:58 PM PDT by Blonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Blonde
this would be good news if the constitution still had merit and there was still a separation of powers.

I have zero faith in the SCOTUS it is just another arm of the socialist oligarchy

2 posted on 03/21/2010 11:16:22 PM PDT by KTM rider ( ..........tell me this really isn't happening ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

I love Federalism. Too bad it hasn’t been practiced in a while.


3 posted on 03/21/2010 11:17:36 PM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider

This would be a great tactic if there were still three functioning branches of the government and a written constitution.


4 posted on 03/21/2010 11:18:45 PM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

The real problem is the Commerce Clause, it’s the exception that’s swallowing the rule; the entire Constitution.


5 posted on 03/21/2010 11:25:15 PM PDT by americanophile (DeMint/Ryan '10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blonde
That will be just the start of an all out attack on 0bamacare. In addition to the states, there will be several lawsuits filed by conservative organisations and businessses against this corrupt monstrosity of a bill, then voters are going to deliver the coup de grace to this bill in November and in 2012 when 0bozo and the Democrats are crushed at the elections.
We don't back down, we don't stop fighting, we don't surrender until 0bamcare is dead.
6 posted on 03/21/2010 11:26:01 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
I have zero faith in the SCOTUS it is just another arm of the socialist oligarchy

Normally I'd agree, but Obama did just go out of his way to insult the court.

MM (in TX)

7 posted on 03/21/2010 11:30:36 PM PDT by MississippiMan (http://gogmagogblog.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

15 years and 6 billion dollars later, it will be found Constitutional.

You have a nice day. :P


8 posted on 03/21/2010 11:31:37 PM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
this would be good news if the constitution still had merit and there was still a separation of powers.

I have zero faith in the SCOTUS it is just another arm of the socialist oligarchy

There's always the option that I see on the back of most pick-up trucks here in Texas: SECEDE!

9 posted on 03/21/2010 11:32:14 PM PDT by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Normally I'd agree, but Obama did just go out of his way to insult the court.

Bingo!
10 posted on 03/21/2010 11:33:29 PM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Blonde
attorneys general = good

attorney generals = bad

11 posted on 03/21/2010 11:35:44 PM PDT by South40 ("Islam has a long tradition of tolerance." ~Hussein Obama, June 4, 2009, Cairo, Egypt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

lately,I’ve sen alot more secede bumperstickers...on all kindsa cars, even foriegn cars and small fuel effiency ones:)


12 posted on 03/21/2010 11:39:51 PM PDT by flowergirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

And how many army divisions have the court to enforce it if they rule for Obama? The states could wreak a LOT of havoc with the feds if they wanted to and had public support.


13 posted on 03/21/2010 11:42:02 PM PDT by coydog (Time to feed the pigs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

It seems to me that unfunded state mandates would be one valid point of attack, although others may be privy to this already having been addressed by the SCOTUS unknown to me, for another matter. Unfunded mandates today would be a very critical matter since many states are on the verge of insolvency already. Taking a debt dump on them right now is unquestionably a very problematic endeavor.

The next line of attack would be the demand that individuals buy something. As far as I know, the federal government is not granted that power by the U.S. Constitution, and thus that would be unconstitutional.

Then there’s another aspect of this that I find troubling. How can one state or group be singled out for protections, outs, or special perks? Perhaps that takes place all the time, but challenging it seems like a reasoned thing to do.

You strike down the constitutionality of forcing folks to buy something, and I think you’ve just destroyed this fiasco.


14 posted on 03/21/2010 11:42:54 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (If we as Republicans can't clean up our house, who can or will? Just say no to MeCain(D).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maurice Tift

Also, I think a lawsuit brought by the AGs of a LOT of states is more likely to be taken seriously. I just hope these AGs are ready to truly fight and save the country from this atrocity.

MM


15 posted on 03/21/2010 11:44:30 PM PDT by MississippiMan (http://gogmagogblog.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

It’s far from over, folks.


16 posted on 03/21/2010 11:45:03 PM PDT by rae4palin (islam is of the devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

You probably meant trillion, but I’m not convinced your timeline is solid.

IMO, this goes to the SCOTUS in short order.

A cease and desist would be the first rule of thumb.


17 posted on 03/21/2010 11:47:10 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (If we as Republicans can't clean up our house, who can or will? Just say no to MeCain(D).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

I would like for someone to explain to me HOW the Government can restrict student loans to Government issuance only. How can the government restrict the intended purpose of a bank loan, student or otherwise. THIS HAS TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


18 posted on 03/21/2010 11:48:01 PM PDT by historyrepeatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

The Feds have a blank check to Affect commerce. This is an attempt to Effect commerce.


19 posted on 03/21/2010 11:48:05 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“Then there’s another aspect of this that I find troubling. How can one state or group be singled out for protections, outs, or special perks? Perhaps that takes place all the time, but challenging it seems like a reasoned thing to do.”

Yes, Florida got a pass on a Medicare provision.

I don’t think this can pass constitutional muster. And I do believe it will be expedited to the Supreme Court.

We shall see.


20 posted on 03/21/2010 11:48:48 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Oh no doubt that this contains an individual mandate to purchase a commodity that simply cannot be constitutional if the document is to have any meaning.
21 posted on 03/21/2010 11:50:37 PM PDT by americanophile (DeMint/Ryan '10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Thanks Persevero. Let’s hope so...


22 posted on 03/21/2010 11:55:32 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (If we as Republicans can't clean up our house, who can or will? Just say no to MeCain(D).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Exactly right. Don’t forget the equal protection clause would likely come into play: different rules for Congress than the people, different rules for different states, etc.... Of course the biggest argument is the mandate and the right to regulate health insurance - neither power granted to the Feds.


23 posted on 03/22/2010 12:00:26 AM PDT by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: historyrepeatz

Seems they are using the same “must buy from us” reasoning they are using for insurance. All the same corrupt socialistic argument - and yes, it’s Unconstitutional.


24 posted on 03/22/2010 12:01:56 AM PDT by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

These arrogant democrats have openly discarded the will
of the people and have defiled the U.S. Constitution.
They knew the vote was fixed but they deceived the American people.

Stupak is our new Benedcit Arnold.


25 posted on 03/22/2010 12:02:34 AM PDT by ChiMark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Exactly. A HUGE difference and attorneys all over are saying it won’t pass Constitutional muster. Nor should it.


26 posted on 03/22/2010 12:03:05 AM PDT by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan

I plan to talk to my representative in the State Legislature.


27 posted on 03/22/2010 12:04:11 AM PDT by Maurice Tift (You can't stop the signal, Mal. You can never stop the signal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

I agree with you, this is not going to take 15 year or even 5 years to reach the Supreme Court. I am tired of people suggesting that the Supreme Court has no value in this matter. The Supreme Court was created for just such an occasion.


28 posted on 03/22/2010 12:18:00 AM PDT by Sarah-bot (The bloom is off the fart blossum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

Bookmark


29 posted on 03/22/2010 12:20:29 AM PDT by 1035rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLLH

Just think of it...219 Democrats in the House, 60 Democrats in Senate and 1 Community organizer , 280 people (that’s only about 1/1000th of a percent of the entire population) has just signed 300 million people up to a bill they don’t need nor want...it cannot stand....


30 posted on 03/22/2010 12:22:16 AM PDT by databoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

This is OUTSTANDING news. It’s long past time that the states got off their collective rumps and started pushing back against the federal monstrosity that’s grown unchecked since 1865.


31 posted on 03/22/2010 12:27:01 AM PDT by Wolfstar (Note to rigid ideologues: Your own point of view in a mirror is quite a limited window on the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe

Amen!


32 posted on 03/22/2010 12:35:08 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blonde
Even if Barack signs it, it still isn't a law. It hasn't passed both Houses.

That's the first Constitutional challenge right there.

Attack on both fronts.

33 posted on 03/22/2010 12:40:15 AM PDT by TheThinker (Communists: taking over the world one kooky doomsday scenerio at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blonde
Virginia Lawmakers Say "No" To Health Care Reform (First in the Nation)

Idaho first to sign law against health care reform

Kansas one of 37 states challenging federal health care reform (STOPPING THE COMMUNIST TAKEOVER!)

34 posted on 03/22/2010 1:13:13 AM PDT by TigersEye (It's the Marxism, stupid! ... And they call themselves Progressives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
The real problem is the Commerce Clause, it’s the exception that’s swallowing the rule; the entire Constitution.

hmmm... I don't know about that. Currently, health insurance is regulated by the States and there is no intrastate exception -in fact, the intrastate exception that would allow persons to purchase insurance from other states was a topic of debate. With no purchase across state lines the commerce clause is a moot beachhead for the leftists...

Big GOV can regulate interstate commerce BUT not impose it or by default imply it by the act of adopting it and enforcing it

35 posted on 03/22/2010 1:13:45 AM PDT by DBeers ( †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

P.S.

check out “Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States


36 posted on 03/22/2010 1:15:25 AM PDT by DBeers ( †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Blonde
In addition to suits like these, everyone who can should refuse to pay the Obamacare taxes on the ground that they are an unapportioned head tax, and therefore unconstitutional. We could easily get 100 million or more people each filing their own suits against being assessed for an unconstitutional head tax.


37 posted on 03/22/2010 1:16:00 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

This picture says it all. Speaker Pelosi has made a dictatorial sham of her office, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Carrying the House gavel in public like a club ... shame.

This is not Europe and Elected Officials do not march through the streets like European Fascists, Socialists and Communists do to display raw political power.

The Roman Tribune"Fasces” [as in “Fascism”] ... was a bundle of reed-rods surrounding an axe head… the symbol of ultimate authority and the power of Rome. Guards carried the Fasces at the head of the procession as the Tribune made his way through the crowded streets. The message was, “Get out of the way.” -By William R. Mann Sunday, March 21, 2010 Canada FREE PRESS

Fasces at the House of Representatives, which has been overrun by the "Congressional Progressive Caucus"

THE COMMIE U.S. "CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS" WEBSITE

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITES STATES WEBSITE

38 posted on 03/22/2010 1:18:12 AM PDT by Rome2000 (OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST CRYPTO-MUSLIM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coydog
"And how many army divisions have the court to enforce it if they rule for Obama? The states could wreak a LOT of havoc with the feds if they wanted to and had public support."

States get much of ther funding for operations from the federal gov't. A way needs to be found to STOP funding the federal gov't and have the States keep their own tax money and self fund rather then look to the corrupt fed gov't. The larger States can probably do this easily enough since they get back less then they send the gov't but the smaller States would be hurt and a way around this needs to be found so the beast in Washington can be starved. The answer to this debacle is massive, truly massive civil disobedience (peaceful).

39 posted on 03/22/2010 1:39:32 AM PDT by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TheThinker
"It hasn't passed both Houses. "Think again Thinker, house passed the Senate version today, Obama will sign it into law monday or tuesday.
40 posted on 03/22/2010 1:39:38 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: All

The States are broke and will be bought off (bailed out) to go along with the new law. Whatever the next step in socialism is, it’s coming soon. Probably a 75% combined tax rate would be my guess.


41 posted on 03/22/2010 1:50:24 AM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

...and yet that what they’re basing their authority, like almost all nanny state legislation on.


42 posted on 03/22/2010 2:37:59 AM PDT by americanophile (DeMint/Ryan '10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

Although some protion of the bill might be covered under the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, it is difficult to see any enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to implement such a vast medical care program on its own delegated authority.

It is a settled point of law that, under the concept of “dual sovereignty,” federal law can govern the activities of individuals, but it cannot govern a state or require it to do anything, including enforcing a federal law. [Printz v. United States and Mack v. United States, (June 27, 1997)]

The Court has, however, ruled that the federal government, under something called “cooperative federalism,” can allow the States, within limits established by federal minimum standards, to enact and administer their own regulatory programs, structured to meet their own particular needs. If they don’t, then the regulatory burden is entirely up to the feds. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264 (1981)

Under what is termed the federal “spending power,” Congress may use monetary allocations to achieve its aims.
[”The clause thought to authorize the legislation, the first, confers upon the Congress power ‘to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]

In New York v. United States 505 US 144 (1992), the Court declared: “...the Constitution authorizes Congress “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, 8, cl. 1. As conventional notions of the proper objects of government spending have changed over the years, so has the ability of Congress to “fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money to the States...”

“...’Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds.’ South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S., at 206. Such conditions must (among other requirements) bear some relationship to the purpose of the federal spending, id., at 207-208, and n. 3; otherwise, of course, the spending power could render academic the Constitution’s other grants and limits of federal authority. Where the recipient of federal funds is a State, as is not unusual today, the conditions attached to the funds by Congress may influence a State’s legislative choices. See Kaden, Politics, Money, and State Sovereignty: The Judicial Role, 79 Colum. L. Rev. 847, 874-881 (1979). Dole was one such case: The Court found no constitutional flaw in a federal statute directing the Secretary of Transportation to withhold federal highway funds from States failing to adopt Congress’ choice of a minimum drinking age. Similar examples abound. See, e. g., Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 478-480 (1980); Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444, 461-462 (1978); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 568-569 (1974); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 142-144 (1947).” and ..”if a State’s citizens view federal policy as sufficiently contrary to local interests, they may elect to decline a federal grant...”

So that is part of the key to responding to this. The states are free to decline the program (such as the expanded Medicaid,) but that also means declining the federal money and the strings attached to it.


43 posted on 03/22/2010 2:56:36 AM PDT by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

We must give them(the Federal Government) a fair chance to right themselves and redress our grievances.
When our demands fall on death ears in the court we will have more solid grounds upon which to implement nullification and if necessary secession.

Until that time we should openly act as if this bill is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Demand an injunction to prevent harm to the peoples rights!
and if one is denied provide for one ourselves thou nullification and civil disobedience.

I don’t trust SCOTUS to do the right thing either but we would be no better then them if we did not at least give them a chance to do the right thing.


44 posted on 03/22/2010 2:57:44 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
Amen. With current 9th and 10th amendment jurisprudence, there is nothing at all that the commerce clause does not put under the control of the federal leviathan.
45 posted on 03/22/2010 3:22:19 AM PDT by Spartan79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
I am beginning to think the best means is for the "several states" to convene a constitutional convention (only takes two-thirds (i.e., 33) and congress has NO role) for the purposes of proposing an amendment that requires a balanced federal budget unless authorized by 3/4ths of both houses and and requiring all mandates on the states also require 3/4ths of both houses. The states can then ratify this amendment by 3/4ths of the states (again without any congressional intervention) and it will be the supreme law of the land. Congress has NO backbone to control spending.
46 posted on 03/22/2010 3:23:34 AM PDT by Bobby_Taxpayer (Don't tread on us...or you'll pay the price in the next election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: americanophile
The real problem is the Commerce Clause, it’s the exception that’s swallowing the rule; the entire Constitution.

Wrong!!!! Our founding fathers would not have listed specific powers in Article 1 Section 8 if the ICC gave congress sweeping powers! They would have only written in the ICC in Article 1 Section 8. Nor would they have written the 10th Amendment that begins with the words "Any powers not delegated to the United States" if Congress had all powers.

The ICC only pertains to the transportation of products across state lines. Insurance is not a transportable product and us prohibited by states to be purchased across state lines. The sweeping power slant is nothing but socialist cr*p!
47 posted on 03/22/2010 3:42:44 AM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Normally I'd agree, but Obama did just go out of his way to insult the court. MM (in TX)

Do you really think the four that voted against CFR will be insulted? Once again it looks like the future of the nation will rest on one man.

48 posted on 03/22/2010 3:47:30 AM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Blonde

I read last night that VA AG Ken C said he thinks he has a way to get the case fast tracked.

McCain Feingold was gutted but it took to long to go through the courts. We have to fight to get this fast tracked.

Also someone here point out that the bill where Rostenkowski was chased by seniors was gutted fairly quickly.


49 posted on 03/22/2010 4:45:59 AM PDT by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Great ideas on ways to attack this nightmare. The VA AG Ken Cuccinelli said he thinks he can get the AG lawsuit fast tracked to SCOTUS.

McCain Feingold was gutted adn that Rostenkowski bill where the seniors chased him down the street was dead very quickly.

The doctors, citziens, insurance companies and their employees, seniors and others need to raise hell and resist. No whining people. We fight.


50 posted on 03/22/2010 4:50:16 AM PDT by Frantzie (TV - sending Americans towards Islamic serfdom - Cancel TV service NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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