Posted on 06/10/2010 11:19:57 PM PDT by Libloather
Suthers defends health care lawsuit
By Peter Jones
Published: 06.06.10
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers told members of the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce that a controversial lawsuit challenging part of federal health care reform was brought forth to ensure their constitutional rights.
“What I’m trying to do is protect the individual citizens of Colorado from pervasive coercion by the federal government because what they’ve set up is constitutionally infirm,” the Republican told about 30 chamber business leaders at a June 1 candidate forum in Centennial.
Colorado is one of 20 states challenging a federal provision that would eventually require every U.S. citizen to purchase health insurance. Suthers has taken heat for joining the controversial lawsuit. Opponents argue reform would be unworkable without requiring widespread participation.
Although Suthers largely conceded that point, he said this particular provision does not pass constitutional muster when it comes to what he maintains are the clearly defined roles of federal and state governments.
“[The constitution] says any powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people,” he said. “Well, it won’t surprise you to know that there is no health care power in the United States Constitution.”
Under the provision at question in the lawsuit, Americans who failed to buy health insurance would be fined 2 percent of their adjusted gross income by the Internal Revenue Service.
According to Suthers, Congress would have had stronger constitutional footing to offer financial incentives to states that pass their own mandates for insurance purchases. He likened that idea to the way the federal government has attached stipulations requiring state seatbelt laws to the dispersal of federal highway funds.
“Folks, that’s probably constitutional,” he said. “Massachusetts told its citizens that they had to buy health insurance and that was held constitutional because it was the state doing it, and the state doesn’t have certain limitations that the federal government does.”
Suthers argued that what he has called an unprecedented federal mandate could have far-reaching impact if the U.S. government were allowed to force its citizens to participate in specific financial transactions.
“They can punish you for not buying a fuel-efficient car,” he said. “They could say our health would be much better if everyone belonged to a health club. ... Think about it. If they can do it, there is no aspect of your individual economic decision-making that can’t be controlled by Congress.”
Suthers said he has upset some of his fellow Republicans when he has applied the same federalist principle to Arizona’s controversial law regulating illegal immigration. The U.S. Constitution, he said, gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over legislating immigration.
“I had the audacity to say one part of [the law] is constitutionally problematic — and that is the part where they have said they’re going to criminalize on a state-level your immigration status,” Suthers said. “All the folks who love me about the health care lawsuit say [I’m] a frickin’ traitor.”
Suthers has raised the ire of some on both sides of the political aisle since being appointed attorney general by Gov. Bill Owens in 2005 as a replacement for Democrat Ken Salazar, who resigned after being elected to the U.S. Senate. Suthers handily won election in 2006.
The former Colorado U.S. attorney and onetime Colorado Springs deputy district attorney will face a Democratic challenger, Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett, in November.
Garnett has accused Suthers of being “out of touch” with Coloradans on a variety of issues. He has called Suthers’ decision to join the lawsuit against the federal government “a mistake and a misuse of the office of attorney general.”
The Democrat has also challenged Suthers’ position on medical marijuana, which was approved by Colorado voters in 2000 and has since been the subject of heated debate in the state legislature and elsewhere.
Suthers issued a legal opinion that medical marijuana could be taxed and has been a critic of dispensaries, which were recently codified by the Colorado General Assembly in sweeping legislation regulating the industry.
The attorney general emphasized that the dispensary model was not mentioned in the 2000 voter-approved state constitutional amendment that approved the medicinal use of marijuana.
“What I said was, wait a minute, the voters did not sanction the commercial sale of marijuana in Amendment 20,” Suthers told the chamber. “Before you take up dispensaries, let the voters weigh-in again. I thought that was pretty reasonable.”
In response to criticism that he has not been tough enough on consumer issues, Suthers discussed what he considers abuses by overzealous prosecutors in other states — including attorneys general Jerry Brown of California and Andrew Cuomo of New York, both Democrats.
“Attorneys general have become one of the major factors inhibiting business in America with these lawsuits that are attempting to accomplish public policy,” Suthers said. “... If you can shop yourself as a corporate dragon slayer, it’s a good trip to the U.S. Senate or governor.”
Election Day is Nov. 2.
Oh? Who is 'they'?
CO ping
Good! Glad to see CO get in on this.
I didn’t want you to miss this.
Are there any others who live in Colorado besides you two?
I live in NJ, just saw it & wanted TE to read it. I wish I lived there or anywhere but NJ lol.
There is a pretty fair number of CO FReepers but they must be doing something pointless ... like sleeping.
Sleep when you're dead - which, BTW - is the Commiecare™ model.
Federal judge will have a fence built around Colorado isolating such heresy, don’t worry they’ll take it down after the next presidential election.
All U.S. citizens can fight back by joining the Obamacare Class Action Lawsuit
"The purpose of this lawsuit is to reverse Supreme Court precedent related to the Commerce clause and thereby overturn Obamacare. The Supreme Court has historically erred in its interpretation of the Constitutional role of the Federal Government. Recent Supreme Court rulings hint that they may be willing to take another look at Commerce clause precedent. Obamacare is so over reaching and so onerous, that it must either be repealed in Congress or struck down in the courts. We must fight this on both fronts. This is our historic opportunity to reverse America’s trend toward Socialism by overturning this unconstitutional precedent.
If you are a US citizen and agree with the goal of this lawsuit, please join us. If you have concerns about joining, please review the FAQs for more information. Every person we add strengthens the voice of "We the People".
OVER 10,000 AMERICANS JOIN LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMACARE
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.