Skip to comments.State Attorney Generals Agree To File Constitutional Challenge To Obamacare Immediately
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 governments 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 Cuccinellis office confirmed last night.
(Excerpt) Read more at centristnetblog.com ...
I have zero faith in the SCOTUS it is just another arm of the socialist oligarchy
I love Federalism. Too bad it hasn’t been practiced in a while.
This would be a great tactic if there were still three functioning branches of the government and a written constitution.
The real problem is the Commerce Clause, it’s the exception that’s swallowing the rule; the entire Constitution.
Normally I'd agree, but Obama did just go out of his way to insult the court.
MM (in TX)
15 years and 6 billion dollars later, it will be found Constitutional.
You have a nice day. :P
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!
attorney generals = bad
lately,I’ve sen alot more secede bumperstickers...on all kindsa cars, even foriegn cars and small fuel effiency ones:)
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.
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.
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.
It’s far from over, folks.
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.
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.
The Feds have a blank check to Affect commerce. This is an attempt to Effect commerce.
“Then theres 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.
Thanks Persevero. Let’s hope so...
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. A HUGE difference and attorneys all over are saying it won’t pass Constitutional muster. Nor should it.
I plan to talk to my representative in the State Legislature.
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.
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....
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.
That's the first Constitutional challenge right there.
Attack on both fronts.
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
check out “Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States”
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"
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).
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.
...and yet that what they’re basing their authority, like almost all nanny state legislation on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.