[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: White House, experts: Health care suit will fail TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The White House says it isn't worried that 13 state attorneys general are suing to overturn the massive health care overhaul, and many legal experts agree the effort is futile. But the lawsuit, filed in federal court seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill, underscores the divisiveness of the issue and the political rancor that has surrounded it. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum led the effort to file the suit that claims Congress doesn't have the constitutional right to force people to get health coverage. It also says the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing resources to pay for it. "To that I say, 'Bring it on,'" said White House domestic policy chief Melody Barnes, who cited similar suits filed over Social Security and the Voting Rights Act when those were passed. "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that ... go right ahead." A 14th state, Virginia, did not join the bigger lawsuit, but filed its own, which other states are also considering. McCollum, a Republican running for governor, has been talking about suing to overturn the bill since December. This month he invited other attorneys general to join him. So far South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana have agreed. All the attorneys general are Republican except James "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat, who said he signed on because Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal asked him to and he felt the effort had merit. The lawsuit, filed in Pensacola, asks a judge to declare the bill unconstitutional because "the Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage." Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, said the effort isn't going anywhere. "This is pure, pure political posturing and they have to know it," he said. But South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley disputed that characterization, saying his state will have to cut education and other programs to make up for increased Medicaid costs under the overhaul. "This isn't about attorneys general trying to break into the realm of telling what needs to happen with health care reform," he said. "This is attorneys general saying you went too far with unfunded federal mandates. You exceeded your power under the Constitution." Not so, said Bruce Jacob, a constitutional law professor at Stetson University in Florida, who said the suit seems like a political ploy and is unlikely to succeed. "The federal government certainly can compel people to pay taxes, can compel people to join the Army," he said. Some more states, including Missouri, may join the multistate suit. Still others are looking at other ways to avoid participating, like passing legislation to block requirements in the bill. McCollum predicted his suit would eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. The health care bill "is not lawful," he said. "It may have passed Congress, but there are three branches of government." The lawsuit claims the health care bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs. Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, said she strongly disagrees with Attorney General Rob McKenna's decision to sue, calling the lawsuit an effort to "gut the bill." "There is no reason why we need to spend taxpayer money in the state of Washington to join this suit, when it's going to be litigated no matter what," she said. The lawsuit also says the states can't afford the new law. Using Florida as an example, it says the overhaul will add almost 1.3 million people to the state's Medicaid rolls and cost the state an additional $150 million in 2014, growing to $1 billion a year by 2019. "We simply cannot afford to do the things in this bill that we're mandated to do," McCollum said at a press conference after filing the suit. He said the Medicaid expansion in Florida will cost $1.6 billion, including administrative and other costs. Under the bill, starting in six months, health insurance companies would be required to keep young adults as beneficiaries on their parents' plans until they turn 26, and companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to sick children. Other changes would not kick in until 2014. That's when most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — either through an employer or government program or by buying it themselves. Those who refuse will face tax penalties. No Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate voted for the bill, which Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller in Washington said his agency will vigorously defend. "We are confident that this statute is constitutional and we will prevail when we defend it," he said. ___ Associated Press Writers Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Wash.; Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, La.; Chet Brokaw in Pierre, S.D.; Bill Kaczor in Tallahassee and Mark Smith and Pete Yost in Washington contributed to this report.
Poster Comment: "Not so," said Bruce Jacob, a constitutional law professor at Stetson University in Florida, who said the suit seems like a political ploy and is unlikely to succeed. "The federal government certainly can compel people to pay taxes, can compel people to join the Army," he said. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
Dang. I was hoping otherwise. What do we do now? On a serious note, the USSC already set a precedent prohibiting the feds from imposing "unfunded mandates" on the states. So in order for the USSC to uphold that part of this bill, they'll have to do some nice dancing. They might well do that, but it'll be much easier for the to strike it down.
On a serious note, the USSC already set a precedent prohibiting the feds from imposing "unfunded mandates" on the states. So in order for the USSC to uphold that part of this bill, they'll have to do some nice dancing. They might well do that, but it'll be much easier for the to strike it down. I think the best argument is that the Constitution does not allow the government--at any level--to force people to buy things. I know all the arguments about how the Constitution doesn't apply but they have to pay lip service to it every once in a while and pretend they go by it a little. Too bad we don't have judges on the SC like Andrew Napolitano.
Only because they get away with paying lip service to it. Why can't people understand that these vermin have our utter destruction at heart ? They send all of the fucking jobs overseas and invite in unemployed, drug dealing gang bangers to gang bang your daughters. They force hard working folks to support the lethargic and ignorant that they have trained in the government skools you paid for. GIMME A FUCKING BREAK ... I can't take this pussy attitude anymore ... it is the compliant that are losing us our freedom ! These publicly blatant thugs can kiss my ass ... I will never go back to that squaller of a system run by paedophiles and faggots, I don't give a fuck how many cops, marines or gang bangers they send out here. A man can only die one fucking time ... pussies die a little bit every day. [Nothing personal James Deffenbach this rant isn't aimed at you ... it's just that we're going to wind up in the same place even if we comply ... I say make em fight for it !]
[Nothing personal James Deffenbach this rant isn't aimed at you ... it's just that we're going to wind up in the same place even if we comply ... I say make em fight for it !] Oh, I didn't take it personally at all. I have been telling people about their tax scam and their profligacy for a very long time (since the mid 80's and it seems like a long time to me). Even had a CPA tell me, after he had seen some of my letters to the editor about the income tax scam that "Roscoe (Egger) said he was going to put all you tax protesters in jail." And I told him that Roscoe had no such authority, that only ignorant jurors could do that and I was trying to get them past their ignorance. I still haven't gone to jail and Roscoe has been dead for about 11 years now.
Waking em up is a worthwhile venture. I started thinking this system was corrupted beyond repair 20 some years ago. I exited that system completely and didn't try to make everyone around me think like me. Now, I don't think people are better off for complying. Oh yeah (edit) I went through the show me the law bullshit too. It ain't about Constitutional Law. Anyone fighting it with that as their defense loses. ... it's about contract law and any tie to any fictitious entity makes you subject to whatever horseshit they want to promulgate.
There are no replies to Comment # 11. End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||