Judge: Virginia has a point about Obamacare
You know that nuisance lawsuit that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed to stop Obamacare?
It may have merit.
While the other states (including his) have filed a joint appeal, he is going his separate way on trying to have the law thrown out because it is unconstitutional.
From teh Associated Press: “Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s health care reform law cleared its first legal hurdle Monday as a federal judge ruled the law raises a host of complex constitutional issues.”
FDR’s National Recovery Administration was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.
It ain’t over, Rover.
The Associated Press report:
Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s health care reform law cleared its first legal hurdle Monday as a federal judge ruled the law raises a host of complex constitutional issues.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claims in the lawsuit that Congress doesn’t have the authority to require citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling denied the Justice Department’s attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed, saying further hearings were needed to weigh the merits of the case. An Oct. 18 hearing had previously been set.
“Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America,” Hudson wrote in his 32-page decision.
The Virginia General Assembly passed legislation this year exempting state residents from the federal coverage mandate. Hudson wrote that the attorney general had a right to defend that state law.
Cuccinelli announced in March that he would challenge the national law. More than a dozen other state attorneys general have filed a separate lawsuit in Florida challenging the federal law, but Virginia’s lawsuit is the first to go before a judge.
Hudson said Virginia’s case raises several complex constitutional issues — mainly whether Congress has the right under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to regulate and tax a person’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce.
The health care law aims to ensure coverage for all, requiring most U.S. residents to carry health insurance starting in 2014.
Insurers would not be able to refuse insurance for sick people under the law, which also expands Medicaid to help the poor. It also provides tax credits to help middle-class residents pay premiums. People facing financial hardship would be exempt from the coverage requirement. However, people who can afford insurance but refuse to sign up would face a tax penalty.
On Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters during a teleconference that Hudson’s decision was a procedural step that cleared the way for a hearing.
“We remain confident that the case is solid and there is full constitutional backing for the passing of the Affordable Care Act,” she said.
Stephanie Cutter, a veteran political operative tapped by Obama to guide efforts to explain the law’s benefits, wrote in a White House blog post that the government expected to prevail.
“We do not leave people to die at the emergency room door — whether they have insurance or not,” she wrote.
Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, a former state attorney general who enthusiastically supported the lawsuit, praised the ruling, as did Cuccinelli.
“This lawsuit is not about health care, it’s about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land — the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said in a statement.
Shortly after he took office in January, McDonnell signed into law the legislation intended to block the requirement that individuals buy health insurance. It was the first such legislation in the U.S. to take effect as a state law...
blogs.dailymail.com
Geoff Brown says:
August 2, 2010 at 9:23 PM
Actually, the Demcare bill and the suit by Virginia don’t raise “a host of complicated Constitutional issues”. They raise one simple Constitutional issue: does the federal government, with its duty “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States”, have the authority to compel private citizens to purchase a product that meets standards set by the federal government if citizens would prefer to purchase something else, or nothing at all?
It has a simple answer, too: “NO”. The more complex answer is “WTF? NO!!”
I’d love to see a judge issue a summary judgment against the US government on this one.
blogs.dailymail.com
gk1 says:
August 2, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Considering how quickly the democrats rammed this through congress and how much of this was done by the seat of their pants, I doubt they ever really considered the constitutionality of this bill. When they were trying to sell it to the american people they swore up and down it wasn’t a “tax” but a fine. Now they are in court defending obamacare they are calling it a tax not a fine. Doesn’t sound like they have their story straight even after passing this monstrocity.
blogs.dailymail.com
MT Geoff Brown says:
August 3, 2010 at 9:22 AM
The Interstate Commerce Clause, stated in its entirety above and copied from an on-line copy of the Constitution, is meant to be a pretty simple tool. The nations of the Confederation — which is how the former colonies saw themselves — were all using different forms of money and were routinely charging customs duties on products from other nations — the other former colonies included. This created a financial and economic bottleneck that was retarding development and reducing everyone’s standard of living. The Clause was to end the tariffs between the states and to establish uniform tariffs at the border. It was also to establish one currency that would circulate successfully among the states.
That’s all it was supposed to do. I can support the position that a business which operates across state boundaries, like insurance or railroads, might need a level of federal oversight to verify that it is financially able to meet its obligations, and to resolve disputes about contract enforcement. There is no plausible legal basis that the Constitution restricts the production and use of a product within a state (or on a farm, as in the most egregious case between Dred Scott and Kelo).
The Interstate Commerce Clause is certainly no grant of authority for the federal government to meddle in healthcare finance or to compel any action by anyone inside the United States to enter into an insurance contract. As many people have already commented, “If the feds can do this, they can do anything.”
blogs.dailymail.com |
