Skip to comments.Feds ask Va. health reform lawsuit be dismissed
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 ...
Sounds like Barry is now interfering with the courts and obstructing justice. Is that an impeachable offense. My, I think it is.
>> “Otherwise, a state could import almost any ... “
The power of the “Otherwise” argument. Lame.
BS. Virginia insurance underwriters are prohibited from issuing policies outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Interstate commerce does not apply here.
She clearly has no idea what she is talking about.
I suppose the judge said, “Okay. Case dismissed”.
....”the law is well within the scope of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. “
Ha...she’s got some nerve citing the commerce clause!
“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?
What can the feds do to force the case closed?
“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?
Apparently, the standing to do anything about it.
Indeed it is! This admin. and Congress are not governing a free people, they are attempting to rule.
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!!
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.
Or the “good and welfare clause”, if you ask John Conyers.
I saw the VA AG on Greta and this is what he expected....and he said it begins....
>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.
That begs the question, ignoring the matter of merit.
Hey! Sebelius. Eat my shorts.
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?
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."
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...
This will depend on if the Judge is American or Communist.
Not only a representative in Congress but Chairman of House Judiciary!
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.
Hey Barry, can you hear us now?????
Way to go AG Ken Cuccinelli!!!!
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
She can go back to Kansas with Toto and Dorothy
“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.
You’d think that John Conyers would know better, anyway. He’s a lawyer and head of the House Judiciary Committee. *sigh!*
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."
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?
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.
Making Hussein cough up a birth certificate?
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.”
I don’t follow, I don’t see what you are saying. Please explain.
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
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:
and repeal the 16th Amendment!
Read this, it’s not long and it’s not difficult:
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.
“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”.
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.