State Attorney Generals Agree To File Constitutional Challenge To Obamacare Immediately

Centristnetblog.com ^ | March 22, 2010 | Centrist Blog

[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.

[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

[Retired Greyhound]

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

[LachlanMinnesota]

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

[americanophile]

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

[SmokingJoe]

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.

[MississippiMan]

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)

[Tzimisce]

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

You have a nice day. :P

[Ancesthntr]

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!

[Maurice Tift]

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

Bingo!

[South40]

attorneys general = good

attorney generals = bad

[flowergirl]

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

[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.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[MississippiMan]

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

[rae4palin]

It’s far from over, folks.

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[historyrepeatz]

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.

[HiTech RedNeck]

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

[Persevero]

“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.