See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: White House, experts: Health care suit will fail
Source:
Yahoo News
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323 ... _us/us_health_overhaul_lawsuit
Published: Mar 24, 2010
Author: BRENDAN FARRINGTON
Post Date: 2010-03-24 15:30:29 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 202
Comments: 18
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.
Uh, no. The government cannot compel you to pay taxes or to join the Army. What they can do if you don't pay the taxes is to file charges against you and give you a trial. If there is even one juror who is not a victim of public skool education to the extent where he (or she) is brain dead the government can't get a conviction. Nor can they compel anyone to join the Army. People made the mistake back when they had the draft of taking a step forward when they were told to and reciting the oath. They are not required to do either of those things (army officers cannot command or demand anything of civilians). Don't step forward, don't take the oath and they can't legally draft you (even if there were a draft which is not the case at this time).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: James Deffenbach, 4 (#0)
Thanks for the bump. Everyone has the duty to resist tyranny in whatever way they can.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. 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.
Truth is: The STATES (commercial subsidiaries of the U.S. INC.) have no standing to sue on Constitutional grounds. The Constitutional protections do not exist in the FEDERAL (RESERVE BANK) ZONE. The FEDERALIZED STATES are to the U.S. INC. as counties are to the States. [AL, AK, AS, AZ, you get the drift, are counties of the STATE of WASHINGTON, D.C.] The people are already captive to the SOCIAL SECURITY INSURANCE SCHEME and have "no choice" but to comply with the HEALTHCARE PROGRAM as they are members of the SOCIALIST SYSTEM, and this is simply another BENEFIT of membership. I think the lawsuits are "FRIVOLOUS".
Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
I've kinda given up trying to fit the whole government scheme into one particular legal box or another. If things were that straightforward, we wouldn't have USSC decisions that are split 5-4 or 6-3 all the time. The judges, congress and the pres will do whatever the hell they want, within the confines of simply whatever the hell they can get away with. And that's all there is too it.
Well, all I can say is this: It ain't people like me that have exited the system that condone or promote the furtherance of this bullshit ... it's the compliant people that do. The resistance is not responsible for the furtherance of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT encroachment ... (The resistance types are friendly ... taxpaying voters are the enemy !)
Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
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.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The people are already captive to the SOCIAL SECURITY INSURANCE SCHEME and have "no choice" but to comply with the HEALTHCARE PROGRAM as they are members of the SOCIALIST SYSTEM, and this is simply another BENEFIT of membership. I think the lawsuits are "FRIVOLOUS". I understand your arguments. I am just hoping that the judges might pay lip service to the Constitution as they do on rare occasions to make the people believe that it is more than just what George Bush said it was.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. 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 !]
Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
[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.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. 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.
Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
States can opt out. Why don't they go that route? Because there's no political grandstanding involved? It's strange to watch GOPers suddenly tout lawsuits as the way to go. Usually they are bleating about "tort reform" and limitation of lawsuits.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Some of the states have already passed legislation saying that the people who live in those states will not be required to buy any health insurance (Virginia and Idaho, hopefully many more to follow).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The State of noone222 is one of those states too.
Psalm 94:16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?
It might be useful if you considered the not so subtle differences between personal injury, often frivolous, ambulance chasing lawsuits that are costing American industries, including health care, countless billions of dollars, and not to mention as well as thwarting American innovation AS OPPOSED to the legal challenges launched by the AG's of the 14 states to the unconstitutional mandates of Obamcare.
That is the: I have a feeling that many will indeed bring it on to this bitch real soon.
God is always good!
I seem to remember Bush talking that "Bring it on" $#it. They are recycling talking points.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.resistor bump
#2. To: Lod (#1)
Lord Acton
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
White House, experts: Health care suit will fail
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
#5. To: noone222 (#4)
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
#7. To: Pinguinite (#3)
Dang. I was hoping otherwise. What do we do now?
Lord Acton
#8. To: noone222 (#4)
The FEDERALIZED STATES are to the U.S. INC. as counties are to the States. [AL, AK, AS, AZ, you get the drift, are counties of the STATE of WASHINGTON, D.C.]
Lord Acton
#9. To: James Deffenbach (#7)
(Edited)
they have to pay lip service to it every once in a while and pretend they go by it a little.
#10. To: noone222 (#9)
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.
Lord Acton
#11. To: James Deffenbach (#10)
(Edited)
#12. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
#13. To: Sam Houston (#12)
Lord Acton
#14. To: James Deffenbach (#13)
Some of the states have already passed legislation saying that the people who live in those states will not be required to buy any health insurance (Virginia and Idaho, hopefully many more to follow).
#15. To: Sam Houston (#12)
It's strange to watch GOPers suddenly tout lawsuits as the way to go. Usually they are bleating about "tort reform" and limitation of lawsuits.
#16. To: noone222 (#4)
FARO
RESERVE BANK!!!
Oh what a DUFFLE-HEAD that Barack Obama is !!! Duffle-Head (As used in a Felix the Cat cartoon) A wicked person of limited intelegence but with pretenses of intelectual grandeur. Their only successful endevors are usually the invention of self punishment machines.
#17. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
"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.
#18. To: RickyJ (#17)
Lord Acton
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest