Feds ask Va. health reform lawsuit be dismissed

AP ^ | May 24, 2010 | Bob Lewis

[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.

[BuffaloJack]

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

[Gene Eric]

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

The power of the “Otherwise” argument. Lame.

[Hoodat]

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.

[darkangel82]

She clearly has no idea what she is talking about.

[FlingWingFlyer]

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

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Kimberly GG]

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

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

[Danae]

"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.

[the OlLine Rebel]

“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?

[ForGod'sSake]

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.

[tbw2]

What can the feds do to force the case closed?

[seekthetruth]

ping!

[my small voice]

“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?

[Political Junkie Too]

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

[avacado]

"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!

[gidget7]

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

[djf]

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!!

[Windflier]

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.

[ConjunctionJunction]

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

;-)