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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
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 !!!)
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.)
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.)
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.)
To: ConjunctionJunction
I suppose the judge said, “Okay. Case dismissed”.
To: ForGod'sSake
7
posted on
05/24/2010 8:06:14 PM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four fried chickens and a coke)
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!)
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.)
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.)
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!)
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)
To: Danae; katiekins1
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)
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)
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.)
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
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)
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
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.)
To: Windflier
Or the “good and welfare clause”, if you ask John Conyers.
;-)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson