Skip to comments.McCollum to file lawsuit against health care bill
Posted on 03/21/2010 9:30:36 PM PDT by NoobRep
ORLANDO, FL -- Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama's health care legislation, Florida's Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional.
Bill McCollum will join Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota to file a lawsuit against the federal government.
"The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night.
"If the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."
McCollum will hold a press conference at his Orlando office Monday morning to discuss his plans.
It will get there fast, like the Al Gore vs Bush case. This is a higher profile case than McCain-Feingold. Only political junkies followed McCain-Feingold, but everyone is following Obamacare.
It just happens that this law is unconstitutional.
You are going to claim that this is the freest nation on earth long after it is not. With the passage of Obamacare the freest nation claim is already becoming dubious.
Here's a small amount of comfort: The USSC can say anything they want, but they have no power of enforcement. Yes, Obambi has such, but the if the States/People simply choose not acknowledge such bad USSC decisions and choose to follow the original intent of the Founding Fathers, we COULD prvail. It will take fortitude and possibly civil disobedience, which I've been promoting for some time.
Come and get me SS.
That is my biggest fear. Other than our brave Military and Vets, many of this country have become metro cowardly whiny effeminate wimps. There was a time when real MEN would have marched on DC with weapons on their side to protect our Constitutional heritage.
I applaud the many stalwart patriots in their TEA Party demonstrations, but it has been to NO avail. Did I not tell you?
Worse, the rest of the Country has sat on their ass while watching the latest reality show. Hate to say it, but I can hardly wait for them to get their just due. I long for the day when those "hope and changey" idiots are taxed into oblivion and have to deal with some new regulation that impacts there little soccor practice. But then, I will probably have to pay more taxes for their stupid decisions.
Yes, I'm pissed. Got problem?
It's the end of the American dream I grew up in. I HATE the Joe-six-pack-soccor-moms of this Country. Yes, I said the HATE word, come get me LEO's.
My Country died today because of their selfish little worlds. You who voted for these marxists are beyond my contempt!
You "gimmes" want more stuff? Good luck, because our economy is going to tank and you will have even less. And while I'm sorry for those who didn't support obambi and his socialist agenda I'm sorry for your troubles
Those who did vote for the usurper: eat crap, lose your home, and hope you have to sleep on a street. I did and it's not fun, but then I didn't deserve it as you most certainly do.
Suck soup in a line. Gawd knows I won't be serving you. Hope your children don't suffer, but hope YOU do for voting in these Marxists! See you next Christmas in the line, you frigging idiots!
This is good news!
Nothing at all would surprise me anymore. The federal government appears to be bought and paid for, and unless the states unite and stand up for their rights, it’s over. I don’t know why they’d start now though, after rolling over for the feds on everything else in the past. Remember the federal highway fund blackmail they used to get the states to bump the drinking age to 21?
Yeah, well, I said the same thing in another thread. That is actually our best legal arguement out of this mess.
Read through these threads and other boards. Countless clueless claim they are not going to be forced to buy health insurance. It's actually in the Senate bill tha the House just passed.
Think of the millions and millions of youngsters who will say WTF? Really? I don't have the money. Then what? Oh yeah, the IRS with their new 16,000 agents will investigate and make them pay into Obambicare.
This is going to be funny to watch the IRS try to collect from kids who have squat. Wonder if the new and improved and newly armed IRS will go after the parents' assets? Wouldn't doubt it. We are now in the Brave New World where everyone MUST buy health insurance or have your assets taxed or be fined or imprisonment.
I'm going to love to see how that "Hopey Changey" thing works out for all those idiot college kids and their liberal parents. RWII is coming. Mark this post.
This thing is about as transparent as mud, but I think the provision for a fine is based on income at this point. No income no fine, though that might be imputed to the parents/guardian for a dependent.
38 or so HAVE decided to unite.
God bless Bill McCollum.
Exactly. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Not even when the Japanese did.
Although some protion of the bill might be covered under the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, it is difficult to see any enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to implement such a vast medical care program on its own delegated authority.
It is a settled point of law that, under the concept of “dual sovereignty,” federal law can govern the activities of individuals, but it cannot govern a state or require it to do anything, including enforcing a federal law. [Printz v. United States and Mack v. United States, (June 27, 1997)]
The Court has, however, ruled that the federal government, under something called “cooperative federalism,” can allow the States, within limits established by federal minimum standards, to enact and administer their own regulatory programs, structured to meet their own particular needs. If they don’t, then the regulatory burden is entirely up to the feds. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264 (1981)
Under what is termed the federal “spending power,” Congress may use monetary allocations to achieve its aims.
[”The clause thought to authorize the legislation, the first, confers upon the Congress power ‘to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]
In New York v. United States 505 US 144 (1992), the Court declared: “...the Constitution authorizes Congress “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, 8, cl. 1. As conventional notions of the proper objects of government spending have changed over the years, so has the ability of Congress to “fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money to the States...”
“...’Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds.’ South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S., at 206. Such conditions must (among other requirements) bear some relationship to the purpose of the federal spending, id., at 207-208, and n. 3; otherwise, of course, the spending power could render academic the Constitution’s other grants and limits of federal authority. Where the recipient of federal funds is a State, as is not unusual today, the conditions attached to the funds by Congress may influence a State’s legislative choices. See Kaden, Politics, Money, and State Sovereignty: The Judicial Role, 79 Colum. L. Rev. 847, 874-881 (1979). Dole was one such case: The Court found no constitutional flaw in a federal statute directing the Secretary of Transportation to withhold federal highway funds from States failing to adopt Congress’ choice of a minimum drinking age. Similar examples abound. See, e. g., Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 478-480 (1980); Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444, 461-462 (1978); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 568-569 (1974); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 142-144 (1947).” and ..”if a State’s citizens view federal policy as sufficiently contrary to local interests, they may elect to decline a federal grant...”
So that is part of the key to responding to this. The states are free to decline the program (such as the expanded Medicaid,) but that also means declining the federal money and the strings attached to it.
/sarc Yeah..that's why the Supreme Court eviscerated most of McCain/Fiengold and declared most of that law unconstitutional right?
Tom Corbett is running for governor and is the Republican favorite. Great guy.
My point is this: We’ll see how long they carry on the fight, if the court doesn’t throw it out. Will they decide to stand their ground, or will they decide to fold like cardboard, the way so many have done on several previous issues? I hope the hell this is the line in the sand, but from previous experience, I’ll believe it when I see it.
The Supreme Court agreed with the “people who yelled “unconstitutionalal”” on McCain/Feingold, no?
As long as it takes, till we vote the Democrats and 0bama out of power and repeal it ourselves.
” Will they decide to stand their ground, or will they decide to fold like cardboard, the way so many have done on several previous issues? “
Umm...it took 8 years after McCain/Feingold was passed before the SCOTUS finally repealed most of it. No one “folded like cardboard”.