Virginia Suit Against Health Care Law Moves Forward

[groovedaddy]

A federal judge has refused to block a challenge to the Obama administration’s health care law brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The administration had asked the judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court, to dismiss the challenge by Virginia’s attorney general, Ken T. Cuccinelli II.

Mr. Cuccinelli had argued that Congress, in passing a measure that requires people to buy insurance or face a penalty, exceeded its limits under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and tax powers. Mr. Cuccinelli had also argued that the federal law violated a state law, the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which declares that residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.

Mr. Cuccinelli is one of 21 state officials fighting the health care law, and this is the first ruling by a federal court on the important question of whether states have the standing to sue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03virginia.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

[rocktivity]

1. All Obama has to do is create 21 "Medicare for all" states.

:evilgrin:
rocktivity

[FBaggins]

2. Of course they have standing to sue.

Doesn't mean that they will (or should) win, but they certainly have standing.

Even if they didn't (as I believe the ruling recognizes), they can create standing by passing a state law that conflicts with the federal law.

[TxRider]

3. Which they just did.

It is a very interesting question.

There was a time when congress took constitutional limits more severely, such as requiring a constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition.

Starting the the firearms act of 1934, congress has discovered the use of the commerce clause could be expanded to regulate basically anything that involved an economic transaction. That was used to prohibit marijuana and other drugs, and has been used for many purposes since. Congress authority to tax economic activity.

The question here is can congress use the commerce clause as it's authority to regulate without any economic act or transaction. That seems to be what the administration is arguing, though they also have other arguments. Does the federal government have the authority to tax or fine you for non action, non activity where no economic transaction or act exists.

Or more simply, if congress can force a taxpayer to purchase a product(insurance) from a for profit private corporation, what then stands in the way of congress forcing you to say, buy a Ford car, or buy coca cola products, and be taxed or fined if you do not do so if it is deemed to be in the public interest. If the constitution allows such authority, where does such authority end?

It is an interesting constitutional question to me.