Posted on 03/29/2010 8:20:39 PM PDT by Elderberry
If the mandate does not go into effect for four years, is there a need for an immediate injunction?
Rule 16 Conferences are usually scheduled within 30 days of the date that the action is commenced. This is SOP.
Declaratory and injunctive relief is the standard request in actions challenging the constitutionality of legislation. The plaintiffs are asking the court to “declare” the law unconstitutional and to issue an “injunction” precluding the defendants from enforcing the law.
Well LOTS of military and retired military live there.
bttt
I think the state AG lawsuits will be heard by the USSC as a case of first impression, under their original jurisdiction.
When will this imposter get removed or impeached?
Good - may have to activate them in the war against the Obamanation of Desolation.
When the courts and government enforce the law. Barry has not proven that he is a natural born citizen.
Does that mean "Attorney General" lawsuit? If so, who does that apply to here?
That argument falls apart immediately when it is pointed out that SSI is paid to the Federal Government and may therefore be a tax, however insurance premiums mandated by ObamaCare are not paid to the Federal Government and are therefore not a tax, but a mandate for one private party to buy a product from another private party. That is unheard of under the Constitution --
It may not. In the plaintiff’s documents, it specifically attacks this part of the bill, by pointing out that the mere act of being born does not constitute engaging in a commerce, and is not taxable.
This is a fee on every American, even babies, from the moment of birth.
Rush Limbaugh discussed last week FDR was using the same argument IN PUBLIC that SS was not a tax but a retirement savings plan with revenues segregated from the general fund. But FDR’s lawyers went to court arguing it was a tax.
Hillarycare met with stiff opposition because of costs and the costs were CBO scored to be large by the tax mandates of going to her ‘alliances’ to purchase insurance from private health insurers.
This time around a partisan CBO director who has since been appointed as Obama’s OMB director, this CBO chief did not score the payments made to Obama’s ‘exchanges’ (Obama’s exchanges = Hillary’s alliances, samething) as tax mandates in order to keep all that revenue and cost off the books (Enron type accounting). Obviously they learned what not to do from the Hillarycare failure.
So Obama’s lawyers will likely not defend well Obamacare under the Commerce Clause, they will switch to calling the insurance mandate in effect a ‘tax’ and defend the constitutionality of Obamacare under 16th Amendment grounds.
Are you following? I am not trying to discourage people’s faith in the lawsuits, just trying to prepare for another possibility. Evidence is that Obama is way too confident for my taste that he will prevail in court. They have a plan and I believe it will be a tax argument.
Obama doesn’t care what he says in public just as FDR didn’t care, Obama just counts on the victory whatever argument is used.
The student Loans law was tied up with it, that is going into effect immediately, I hope they took that into consideration, it makes the matter a little more urgent as some of the bill is expected to go into effect pretty much immediately.
And if people think that the bureaucrats charged with dispensing student loans won’t be taking into consideration the applicant’s race, sex, religion, and even partents’ voter registration, they’re crazy. This is a means of shutting out the “wrong people” from access to higher education.
Take it to ‘em!
The taxes, fees, and penalties will go into effect in some cases immediately...
Call me slow on the uptake but who is filing against whom exactly?
McCollum is suing Sebelius.
BILL McCOLLUM, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA;
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, by and through
HENRY McMASTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
STATE OF NEBRASKA, by and through
JON BRUNING, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA;
STATE OF TEXAS, by and through
GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS;
STATE OF UTAH, by and through
MARK L. SHURTLEFF, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF UTAH;
STATE OF LOUISIANA, by and through
JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA;
STATE OF ALABAMA, by and through
TROY KING, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA;
STATE OF MICHIGAN, by and through
MICHAEL A. COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF COLORADO, by and through
JOHN W. SUTHERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO;
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, by
and through THOMAS W. CORBETT, Jr.,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 23
2
STATE OF WASHINGTON, by and through
ROBERT M. McKENNA, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON;
STATE OF IDAHO, by and through
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; and
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, by and through
MARTY J. JACKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 3:10-cv-91
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official
capacity as the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY; TIMOTHY F.
GEITHNER, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of the United States Department
of the Treasury; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and HILDA
L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary
of the United States Department of Labor,
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.