Va. health-care lawsuit to proceed (against Obama plan)

[Karmadillo]

Source: Washington Post

A federal judge Monday refused to dismiss a Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care law, handing the law's foes their first victory in a courtroom battle likely to last years.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.

The lawsuit, lodged by Virginia Republican Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli II, argues that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority when it included a provision in the law mandating that citizens purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.

Cuccinelli filed the suit moments after President Obama signed the sweeping health-care bill into law, citing the federal law's conflict with a new Virginia statute that made it illegal to require state residents to purchase health insurance.



Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/virginia/va-health-care-lawsuit-to-proc.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Another waste of taxpayer money. No state statute can override a federal law.

[Tempest]

2. The judge is a Bush appointee

Hudson is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Hudson was nominated by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2002, to a new seat created by 114 Stat. 2762.

[jody]

3. SCOTUS will have to explain why the 10th Amendment does not mean what it says. Jefferson and

Madison would be proud that Cuccinelli is following their 1798 precedents with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

[atreides1]

4. It would matter more if Cuccinelli was doing for those reasons

..and not just to pad his resume!


Besides there are some precedents that can be used:

During the "nullification crisis" of 1828-1833, South Carolina threatened to nullify a federal law regarding tariffs. Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation against the doctrine of nullification, stating: "I consider...the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." He also denied the right to secede: "The Constitution...forms a government not a league...To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation." Later, Abraham Lincoln also rejected the compact theory saying the Constitution was a binding contract among the states and no contract can be changed unilaterally by one party.


Also, is the Health Care Law, really to be considered "oppressive legislation"?

Called forth by oppressive legislation of the national government, notably the Alien and Sedition Laws, they represented a vigorous defense of the principles of freedom and self-government under the United States Constitution. But since the defense involved an appeal to principles of state rights, the resolutions struck a line of argument potentially as dangerous to the Union as were the odious laws to the freedom with which it was identified. One hysteria tended to produce another. A crisis of freedom threatened to become a crisis of Union. The latter was deferred in 1798-1800, but it would return, and when it did the principles Jefferson had invoked against the Alien and Sedition Laws would sustain delusions of state sovereignty fully as violent as the Federalist delusions he had combated.

The limits of the 10th Amendment were decided between the years 1861-1865.

[1monster]

11. [Amendment X]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Seems pretty clear, but then Amendments I, IV, V, and IX have already been abrogated to the point that some of the rights and liberties guarranteed by the Bill of Rights no longer exist with the consent of the Supreme Court. I'm sure that the majority of the current USSC could come up with some gobbity glop or other to cover their taking away the meaning of Amendment X.

[Deep13]

13. "The powers NOT delegated ..."

Since regulation of interstate commerce is delegated to Congress, there isn't a whole lot that falls within the 10th Amend.

[sofa king]

5. It's a "taking," right?

I always manage to prove I'm not a lawyer in a couple of sentences, but forcing Americans to toss their income into a corporate shell game that by its very business model is designed to never pay out what's put into it should be considered a "taking," correct?

According to the 5th Amendment, the government can't force people into such a situation without compensating them for their loss--which of course would defeat the obvious purpose of ripping off the American people and not compensating them for the loss. And if the government does compensate the people for their loss, the result is more-or-less a direct subsidy to the insurance industry.

Having said all that, I was hoping that the worst provisions in the health care bill would be stripped out by judicial review, and it appears that process is proceeding apace.

[Deep13]

7. A "taking" has to be for a public purpose...

and the owner of the taken property has to be compensated for the fair market value. So if health insurance fees are a taking then the fair market value of those fees is the same as that fee. So, person A pays company B as a "taking." The Feds must now pay A whatever he or she paid B.

[sofa king]

8. ...Which might be a roundabout way to universal health care, no?

Probably not, as I'm always wrong about these things.

[Deep13]

9. Well, it's universal if every complies with it.

But forcing people to buy an inadequate, over-priced product from immoral, profit driven companies is not what most of us had in mind when we thought of health care reform.

If everyone were required to pay into a public program, then it's not a problem since the fees would be a legitimate tax.

[Deep13]

6. The Feds. can tax and they can "take"...

...but can they really order A to buy something from company B? It would be a better argument if the requirement was to buy into a public program and allowing company B to be an alternative.

Sure, they can order coverage for car use, but to live?

[greiner3]

10. Even though I have no income;

I receive SSDI, I am required to file a local tax '1099.' So I have to have 'coverage' to live?

[Deep13]

12. I don't mean they are going to kill anyone without coverage.

That's not the law. I just mean that as a living person, you will be required to obtain coverage.

[Arkana]

14. Fine then--we'll do to them what we did in 1832 to South Carolina.

We can start by hanging Eric Cantor and Bob McDonnell from the nearest tree. At least, that's what Andrew Jackson would have done.