our Michigan Pro-Lifers File Federal Lawsuit(Against Obamacare)

Rest of Title: Saying Health-Care Bill Makes Them Complicit in ‘Grave Moral Disorder’ of Abortion

Four pro-life Michigan residents have thrown yet another constitutional challenge onto the pile of claims that have emerged since legal wrangling over the health-care reform law began last week.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, filed suit last week in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, saying their First Amendment rights are being violated because, under the new law, they will be obliged to buy insurance that funds abortions, and that special tax carve-outs for union members discriminate against others for not sharing the same political beliefs.

The lawsuit alleges that the pro-lifers are being forced to contribute to the funding of abortion, which, according to their deeply held religious beliefs and convictions, “is a grave moral disorder since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being,” the complaint reads.

Robert Muise, senior trial counsel for the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based legal group, said the Health Care Reform Act violates the fundamental rights of conscience and free exercise of religion of pro-lifers -- rights protected by the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, which bars Congress from creating any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of a particular religion.

In order to secure the votes of a number of pro-life House Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), President Obama signed an executive order last week clarifying that no provision in the bill should allow for tax dollars to be used on abortions. He clarified that the language of the Hyde Amendment, which is attached to appropriations bills to keep tax dollars from funding abortions, should also apply to this bill.

However, both pro-life advocates and abortion advocates point out that a presidential order cannot override a statute and that President Obama could at any time rescind his order – which the president of Planned Parenthood referred to as nothing more than a “symbolic gesture.”

Muise explained to CNSNews.com that his plaintiffs shared that his clients share the view that the language of the health-care bill was “written expressly to circumvent Hyde” – a reference to the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding of abortion under most circumstances.

The four plaintiffs are unhappy with more than just the potential to pay for abortions; they say they are also not receiving equal protection under the law per the Fifth Amendment.

In the complaint, Muise points out that the law provides exemptions to religious groups who oppose some of the trappings of modern health care, but offers no such exemption for their abortion concern.

Additionally, they say they were denied equal protection when congressional leadership allegedly modified tax provisions in the bill to keep union members from being hit with them.

“Through the enforcement of the Health Care Reform Act, certain organizations, specifically including certain unions, will not be taxed on their health care plans because these because these organizations share the same political views of Defendants and of those currently in power in Congress. TMLC, which does not share these same political views, will be discriminated against in the enforcement of the Health Care Reform Act in that its employees will be taxed for the health care coverage provided by TMLC.”

The Senate-passed health care reform bill contained a steep excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” or high-value insurance plans, but the House of Representatives reportedly disliked it because it would hit many union members whose organizations had bargained for better benefits instead of increased wages. After passing the bill, they passed a package of fixes that shrank the number of plans that would be charged by the surtax.

More than a dozen state attorneys general have filed suit claiming that the health care reform bill oversteps the enumerated powers of the federal government and encroaches on the states. This suit and others also say the bill oversteps the Article I power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause; and another suit brought in federal district for the District of Columbia that says the law violates the Fifth Amendment by forcing people to pay for medical insurance for the public good, without remittance.

Muise told CNSNews.com he had not seen a bill with so many potential violations of constitutional rights and protections.

“They worked really hard on this one,” he said. “They say an ass is a horse made by committee. This is worse than that. It’s just a power grab.”

CNSNews.com previously reported that, when asked about the constitutionality of the bill, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said the courts could determine those issues later. “(I) can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in,” she said just two days before the bill passed the Senate.

Muise, however, took issue with that stance, explaining that as a Marine, he took an oath to defend the Constitution, as did members of Congress.

“If you put something in there knowingly that was unconstitutional,” he said, “I would have a real problem with that.”

The suit, which was filed March 23 in federal district court in Detroit, names President Obama, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as defendants.

The Constitution is the limiting document upon the feds; the federal government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the federal servant cannot become greater than its master........the states.

.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments. Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............

============================================

Wall Street Journal | Jan. 2, 2010 | Orin Hatch et al
FR Posted by Military family member

The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

======================================

States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.

The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.

The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...