Question for DU ATTORNEYS: Is it possible for "We, the People" to file a class-action suit...

[polichick]

...against Congress to strip them of the insurance paid for with our tax dollars??

It's just absurd for us to pay for their great coverage when ALL of us are not even offered a public option.

Maybe the suit should be about OUR tax dollars paying for OUR coverage too.

What are the possibilities from a legal standpoint?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. "Now I may be just be a simple Hyper-Chicken, but I know when we're finger licked."

[polichick]

4. How 'bout a finger linkin' revolution?! nt

[SDuderstadt]

2. One does not have to be an attorney to answer this...

the answer is no and this is a stupid question/OP. Sorry.

[polichick]

3. You're sorry alright. There are no stupid questions. nt

[SDuderstadt]

5. No, this is...

have you ever taken a civics class?

[Old Codger]

6. Seems to me

That a part of the first amendment may apply


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[polichick]

7. Thanks - now we're getting somewhere. I wonder what kinds of "petitions"...

...that might include.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. Are you a lawyer?

[Old Codger]

13. Am I a lawyer?

Not on a bet, just pointing out something that MAY apply or at least be a starting point, that is why the word MAY was inserted rather than would or does or any other such.

[WeDidIt]

9. I'm sure Orly Taitz would take the case

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Can a judge certify the constitution of a class of which he or she is a part

What is this, advanced set theory?

:rofl:

Gimme a break.

[Garam_Masala]

11. Nope...no suit shoud/could be filed...however...

I would respect our law makers heckuva lot more if they abandoned
their Cadillac Health Insurance courtesy of US tax payers VOLUNTARILY
and signed on to the "magnificent" PO which they designed for us
common folks.

That action would be commendable and patriotic, and leading by example!

But I won't hold my breath.

[polichick]

16. Few (if any) on the Hill or in the WH "lead by example" - the idea seems almost quaint. nt

[treestar]

12. maybe. Find the statute that provides for it and see if there is any

argument that it violates the Constitution. There could be some argument that they are not "government employees." they aren't really employees, but elected officials.

Amazing that they got it through in the first place. The people at that time must not have been paying attention.

One weakness for them is they can "lose their job" every 2/6 years - it would be better to just buy it out of their pay, so they wouldn't be subject to cobra or preexisting conditions.

[polichick]

15. It is suprising that it got through in the first place - and that the people just keep...

...putting up with such idiocy ~ endless sums for unnecessary wars that make friends o'Congress rich and no national healthcare for taxpayers.

It's truly crazy!

Interesting point about members of Congress not being "government employees."

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. Slim to none.

United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 both still good law, suggest that a generalized, diffuse harm doesn't confer standing to sue.

[polichick]

17. "a generalized, diffuse harm" - I'd guess those bringing the suits...

...felt the harm was somewhat more than that, but it's sure interesting legalese.

[tabatha]

18. I think we should rather make a big noise about

Lieberman giving up his health care if he does not support the public option.

[polichick]

20. Seems like they won't even take his committee chair away...

But I'd be all for loserman losing his healthcare.

[jberryhill]

19. No. /nt

[nutshell2002]

21. It is not a stupid question

I am assuming you would assert standing (standing = whether one has the right to have his/her complaint heard in court) as a United States taxpayer. It is my understanding that there is no taxpayer standing to sue the federal government unless one is asserting that the federal government has used taxpayer $$ to fund a program that violates the Establishment Clause.

[polichick]

24. It's a wonder that nobody has sued about funding for the "Faith Based" positions...

Thanks for the info!

[Hepburn]

26. Generally....

...there is no standing as a "tax payer." The injury/damage has to be personal and direct. Paying taxes and having them "mis-spent" does not meet the test.

BTW: I primarily practiced in state court ~~ so the above opinion is just off the top of my head from some feddie stuff I vaguely remember.

:hi:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

22. Good idea only strip Republicans and those Dems voting against

[optimator]

23. judicial branch is our only hope against tyranny

There must be a lawsuit to prevent the IRS from being a collection agency for private corporations.

[polichick]

25. That is exactly what's happening - with Congressional approval...

...and help from WH after WH. And the people just take it.