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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 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.

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