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

Skip to comments.

Feds ask Va. health reform lawsuit be dismissed
AP ^ | May 24, 2010 | Bob Lewis

Posted on 05/24/2010 7:55:33 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction

RICHMOND, Va. – President Barack Obama's administration on Monday asked a federal judge in Virginia to dismiss the state's lawsuit alleging Congress overstepped its constitutional bounds with the new health care reform law.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued in a motion filed hours before a midnight deadline that the law is well within the scope of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Virginia's Republican attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Richmond less than eight hours after Congress enacted the law. It argues that requiring people to buy health coverage or pay a fee exceeds federal powers limited by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.

More than a dozen state attorneys general have sued over the legislation on broadly similar grounds in cases that are likely be determined by the Supreme Court.

The conservative attorney general sued in defense of a Virginia law enacted this winter that exempts state residents from being required to have health coverage.

Sebelius argues in her dismissal motion, however, that Virginia lacks the standing to sue.

"A state cannot ... manufacture its own standing to challenge a federal law by simple expedient of passing a statute purporting to nullify it," read the motion. "Otherwise, a state could import almost any political or policy dispute into federal court by enacting its side of the argument into state law."

Sebelius also contends that the new law, passed solely by the ruling Democrats in Congress and signed by a Democratic president, is constitutional.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; bhohealthcare; bhohhs; commerceclause; constitution; cuccinelli; cwii; healthcare; individualmandate; kathleensebelius; kencuccinelli; lawsuit; obamacare; sebelius; statesrights; usconstitution; va; virginia

1 posted on 05/24/2010 7:55:34 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Sounds like Barry is now interfering with the courts and obstructing justice. Is that an impeachable offense. My, I think it is.


2 posted on 05/24/2010 7:57:40 PM PDT by BuffaloJack (Comrade O has to go; FIRE OBAMA NOW !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

>> “Otherwise, a state could import almost any ... “

The power of the “Otherwise” argument. Lame.


3 posted on 05/24/2010 7:59:41 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued in a motion filed hours before a midnight deadline that the law is well within the scope of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

BS. Virginia insurance underwriters are prohibited from issuing policies outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Interstate commerce does not apply here.

4 posted on 05/24/2010 8:03:17 PM PDT by Hoodat (.For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

She clearly has no idea what she is talking about.


5 posted on 05/24/2010 8:04:30 PM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

I suppose the judge said, “Okay. Case dismissed”.


6 posted on 05/24/2010 8:05:05 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Kiss my AZ!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Ping.


7 posted on 05/24/2010 8:06:14 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

....”the law is well within the scope of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. “

Ha...she’s got some nerve citing the commerce clause!


8 posted on 05/24/2010 8:11:22 PM PDT by Kimberly GG ("Path to Citizenship" Amnesty candidates will NOT get my vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued in a motion filed hours before a midnight deadline that the law is well within the scope of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Bulls**t. The Commerce clause has NEVER been used to regulate INACTIVITY.

The bill is blatantly unconstitutional. If the Federal Government can regulate INACTIVITY, it can tell us ALL we MUST do WHAT EVER IT TELLS US TO. THAT is BLATANTLY unconstitutional.
9 posted on 05/24/2010 8:13:17 PM PDT by Danae (Don't like the Constitution, try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

“well within the scope of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.”

Is there any God damn thing in the world that is NOT within the commerce clause?


10 posted on 05/24/2010 8:16:56 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps
Thanks AAC! Looks like the federales are sticking to their playbook, which is, “odingacare is Constitutional because we say it is”. Just my personal opinion but I think odingacare will go down in flames. In a perfect world one of the district/appelate courts will issue an injunction from one of the lawsuits to stop this abomination in its tracks.
11 posted on 05/24/2010 8:20:02 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

What can the feds do to force the case closed?


12 posted on 05/24/2010 8:22:05 PM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Danae; katiekins1

ping!


13 posted on 05/24/2010 8:27:00 PM PDT by seekthetruth (Dan Fanelli US House FL 8 --- Allen West US House FL 22 --- Marco Rubio - US Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

“A state cannot ... manufacture its own standing to challenge a federal law by simple expedient of passing a statute purporting to nullify it,” read the motion. “Otherwise, a state could import almost any political or policy dispute into federal court by enacting its side of the argument into state law.”

Haven’t read the suit language, but aren’t they doing this on 10th Amendment grounds? Aren’t they “importing” the US Constitution?


14 posted on 05/24/2010 8:29:08 PM PDT by my small voice (A biased media and an uneducated public is the biggest threat to our democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
Is there any God damn thing in the world that is NOT within the commerce clause?

Apparently, the standing to do anything about it.

-PJ

15 posted on 05/24/2010 8:29:10 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
"argued in a motion filed hours before a midnight deadline that the law is well within the scope of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. "

"We The People" are NOT Commerce! We are US Citizens. YOU CANNOT REGULATE US AS IF WE ARE COMMERCE!!! Sounds like bought and sold slavery to me!


16 posted on 05/24/2010 8:43:19 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Indeed it is! This admin. and Congress are not governing a free people, they are attempting to rule.


17 posted on 05/24/2010 8:47:29 PM PDT by gidget7 ("When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property." Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

If it is within the scope of the commerce clause, then the government could simply order everyone to buy a Chevy instead of doing a bailout.

And I seriously doubt anybody believes it would be legal or Constitutional for the government to do that.

Well, that is, anybody who’s not a Federal judge or attorney who’s getting his skids greased by the Feds themselves.

No way you can get a fair trial in a government courtroom. No way.
They all WORK for the government!!


18 posted on 05/24/2010 8:51:48 PM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
Is there any God damn thing in the world that is NOT within the commerce clause?

Everything that isn't, is covered by the General Welfare clause in the preamble, according to the libs.

They can make any law they like. Just ask 'em.

19 posted on 05/24/2010 9:00:16 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Or the “good and welfare clause”, if you ask John Conyers.

;-)


20 posted on 05/24/2010 9:09:34 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction (I can see November from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

I saw the VA AG on Greta and this is what he expected....and he said it begins....


21 posted on 05/24/2010 10:12:36 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82

>She clearly has no idea what she is talking about.
****

She actually knows. She’s just bullshiiting herself because it truly is unconstituional to buy a product as ordered by the feds.

These idiots didn;t even read the AZ law so anything bigger than 10 pages is alien to these morons.


22 posted on 05/24/2010 10:24:05 PM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
"A state cannot ... manufacture its own standing to challenge a federal law by simple expedient of passing a statute purporting to nullify it," read the motion. "Otherwise, a state could import almost any political or policy dispute into federal court by enacting its side of the argument into state law."

That begs the question, ignoring the matter of merit.

23 posted on 05/24/2010 10:31:55 PM PDT by unspun (It's individual, state & national sovereignties, 'stupid' - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Hey! Sebelius. Eat my shorts.


24 posted on 05/24/2010 10:33:41 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
Or the “good and welfare clause”, if you ask John Conyers.

Was that a mind blower, or what? I remember having to memorize the preamble to the Constitution when I was a kid.

You'd think that a representative in the United States Congress would know the name of that clause.

Guess you'd think wrong, eh?

25 posted on 05/24/2010 10:41:49 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
"A state cannot ... manufacture its own standing to challenge a federal law by simple expedient of passing a statute purporting to nullify it," read the motion. "Otherwise, a state could import almost any political or policy dispute into federal court by enacting its side of the argument into state law."

On the flip side, a Virginia could argue:

"The Congress cannot ... manufacture its own standing to pass a federal law requiring the purchase of any good or service by simple expedience of claiming the Commerce Clause allows them to pass anything it wants. Otherwise, the majority party in Congress could implement almost any political or policy by passing a law enacting its side of the argument."

26 posted on 05/24/2010 11:27:27 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction; LucyT

This whole having the “standing to sue” sounds SO familiar! Just who DOES have the “standing to sue” regarding this issue? I guess this tactic has worked so well for Obama regarding the eligibility issue that they are now trying to use it for ALL court challenges...


27 posted on 05/24/2010 11:39:59 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (http://libertyrocks.wordpress.com ~ Anti-Obama Gear: http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

This will depend on if the Judge is American or Communist.


28 posted on 05/24/2010 11:52:11 PM PDT by screaminsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Not only a representative in Congress but Chairman of House Judiciary!


29 posted on 05/24/2010 11:53:53 PM PDT by txrangerette ("Question with boldness. Hold to the truth. Speak without fear". - Glenn Beck -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Sebelius is an ignoramus just like Obozo the Clown. MI is part of the lawsuit and Granholm tried to tell Cox no. Cox told Granholm to eat cake. Obozo is afraid and is striving to intimidate. Intimidate me Obozo the Clown and you will only cause a former marine to drop my drawers and you can kiss my whitey.


30 posted on 05/25/2010 3:30:38 AM PDT by hondact200 ( Lincoln Freed the Enslaved. Obama Enslaves the Free. Obama is Americas Greatest Threat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

Hey Barry, can you hear us now?????

Way to go AG Ken Cuccinelli!!!!


31 posted on 05/25/2010 3:58:30 AM PDT by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

when do you suppose the military is going to step up and honor their sworn to main objective and that would be to protect the constitution


32 posted on 05/25/2010 4:51:14 AM PDT by SF_Redux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
"Hey! Sebelius. Eat my shorts"

She can go back to Kansas with Toto and Dorothy

33 posted on 05/25/2010 5:04:44 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 24 | View Replies]

To: djf

“buy a Chevy instead of doing a bailout.

“And I seriously doubt anybody believes it would be legal or Constitutional for the government to do that.”

Well, the individual states already essentially do this by crying “it’s for the children” and forcing us to buy helmets and car seats. I know, it’s “only” the states, and not specific brands, but it’s still outrageous and I think outside the bounds of what states can do.


34 posted on 05/25/2010 5:42:57 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

You’d think that John Conyers would know better, anyway. He’s a lawyer and head of the House Judiciary Committee. *sigh!*


35 posted on 05/25/2010 5:46:05 AM PDT by ConjunctionJunction (I can see November from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
"A state cannot ... manufacture its own standing to challenge a federal law by simple expedient of passing a statute purporting to nullify it," read the motion. "Otherwise, a state could import almost any political or policy dispute into federal court by enacting its side of the argument into state law."

Which is a major part of the controls against the consolidation of governments....Duh!

-----

"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry

36 posted on 05/25/2010 5:51:18 AM PDT by MamaTexan (Dear GOP - "We Suck Less" is ~NOT~ a campaign platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued in a motion filed hours before a midnight deadline that the law is well within the scope of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Funny, I don't see anything in that clause that persons be required to engage in commerce.

But, then again, we've see that clause used to justify regulation of activities that involve neither commerce nor interstate movement, so what's another penumbra between five black-robed usurpers?

37 posted on 05/25/2010 6:06:44 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction

You know, whenever the question of whether Congress can madate that citizens purchase a product from a private company, the Dem leadership just says “of course we can, don’t be stupid” without actually citing to any relevant statutes or case law. Maybe its out there, but, in my limited searches, I haven’t found it.

Moreover, it just doesn’t pass the smell test. If Congress can do it, what is to stop Herb Kohl from passing a law saying everyone must buy sweaters from Kohls? Or, switching sides, what if the Repubs take over control of Congress and the Presidency, could they say “you know, we think that the Police are overworked and can’t properly defend citizens. As such, we’re going to mandate that everyone purchase a firearm for protection”? I would hope not.


38 posted on 05/25/2010 7:24:39 AM PDT by cauzneffct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

Making Hussein cough up a birth certificate?


39 posted on 05/25/2010 7:26:37 AM PDT by listenhillary (You might be a modern LIBERAL if you read 1984 & said "YEAH! That's the world that I want!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I think its pretty clear that Congress has the power to “regulate” the insurance industry purusant to the Commerce Clause. I just don’t see how “regulation” encompasses “forcing you to purchase.”


40 posted on 05/25/2010 7:32:22 AM PDT by cauzneffct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

I don’t follow, I don’t see what you are saying. Please explain.


41 posted on 05/25/2010 8:27:25 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: max americana; darkangel82

I think she does know what she is talking about, unfortunately.

I think she has also been instructed to not show the real strategy that the administration will use to defeat the lawsuits.

Commerce clause is first card played but not for the purpose of winning the game, but for winning a hand in the game. Real Ace game-winner that administration keeps from view is 16th Amendment. Same playbook that FDR used in the 1930s to defend Social Security.

Obama government will say, and they will be ruled correct, that they are not forcing anyone to buy a product, they are merely setting minimum standards, that no one is forced to buy health insurance that meets minimum federal standards, but those that don’t provide proof on their tax returns will not receive a ‘credit’, and must pay the tax.

It’s a frigging tax argument, not a commerce argument. Let’s be clear:

IT’S A TAX ARGUMENT THAT WE MUST PROVIDE ‘PROOF’ ELSE WE PAY THE TAX

versus

IT’S A COMMERCE ARGUMENT THAT WE MUST BUY

We have to be aware and not set ourselves up to weak arguments, because when we lose we are going to be angry and demoralized.

And if you think that getting mad, and grabbing a gun is going to get us what we want, you are mistaken. Obama’s people want us to do that so they can impose martial law.

Here’s what we have to do NOW:

http://www.fairtax.org

and repeal the 16th Amendment!

Read this, it’s not long and it’s not difficult:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html


42 posted on 05/25/2010 8:44:15 AM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I think you are correct. Basically, they will say by purchasing insurance you are given a tax break and not purchasing it you pay a higher rate. It isn’t any different than if you by weather-proofing and pay lower taxes.


43 posted on 05/25/2010 11:54:39 AM PDT by ChurtleDawg (voting only encourages them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ConjunctionJunction
Default argument. Just deny standing.
44 posted on 05/25/2010 2:38:56 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

“BS. Virginia insurance underwriters are prohibited from issuing policies outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Interstate commerce does not apply here.”

One of the doctors in Virginia stepped on a piece of discarded gum that was manufactured in another state. The 15 seconds it took the doctor to clean the gum off his shoe increased heatlh care costs so health care in Virginia is covered under “Interstate Commerce”.


45 posted on 05/26/2010 4:35:54 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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