Is there any valid reason for a State to bring these lawsuits against the HCR bill?

[gateley]

I was SHOCKED to see my State is one of them (Washington), and I want to know a little more before I call his office and express my displeasure.

Thanks! :hi:

[quiller4]

1. No and law professors all over the country are calling the suit frivolous.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. Law Professors? Psshhhhhhh!!!!

What in the world do they know???!!! :eyes:

For all of their posturing about wasteful spending, "frivolous lawsuits" and "judicial activism", conservatives sure have grown to love 'em.

[ThomWV]

38. Article VI, Clause 2 - the Supremacy Clause

The Court will never hear one of these lawsuits.

[Statistical]

42. Supremacy Clause doesn't deny citizens the right to sue on grounds law is Unconstitutional

It will be the FEDERAL govt (judicial branch) deciding that FEDERAL govt (legislative branch) has done something unconstitutional.

There is no Supremacy Clause issue.

Supremacy Clause violation would be if the State of OR decided that the law is Unconstitutional and prohibit enforcement.

[tekisui]

2. I don't see any reason that is credible.

No Child Left Behind is a much more egregious unfunded mandate for the states.

I don't think the Supreme Court will even hear any of these suits.

[leftofcool]

10. You don't think the SC will hear lawsuits

brought by States wherein the people of said states are "forced" to purchase insurance from a private entity?

[tekisui]

30. No, I don't.

It likely will not make it to the SC.

[Statistical]

39. It will if no reason other than fact that either side will appeal until all appeals are exausted.

I doubt Supreme Court will deny a Writ of Certiorari if the case makes it that far.

If nothing more than to affirm the federal govt does have the ability to regulate "non-commerce".

[LynneSin]

13. This is the same supreme court that gave corporate america free reign in the elections

not holding my breath on whether or not they'll hear these cases.

[global1]

3. Do You Think Insurance Monies Have Gotten To The Pockets Of These AG's......

What is their political affiliation? Did they do this on their own - or should they before they join this suit - find out where the people in their state are on this?

[Statistical]

40. The mandates are the part insurance companies LIKE.

The HCR bill is essentially carrot & stick.

Carrot = Mandate

Stick = limits on profits, limits on denials, limits of premiums, limits of pre-existing conditions.

No insurance company wants to see mandates go away. That is 16 million forced customers some of which have gov backed subsidies. A license to print money.

[ecstatic]

48. Not sure you're right. These are folks who the companies wanted off the rolls

for pre-existing conditions and the like. What good does receiving 100/month do if you're forced to pay out $1,000/month in claims?

[HopeHoops]

4. Absolutely not. The Constitution is clear that federal law trumps that of the states.

The 10th Amendment only grants rights to the states if they are not EXPLICITLY granted to the federal government. The HCR LAW was passed by legal means and is federal law now. If a portion of it is deemed unconstitutional by the USSC, that does not invalidate any other part of the law. The AG's that are doing this are just making a public show. Perhaps the best example of that is AG Tom Corbett of PA. He's just doing it for political reasons - he's running for governor. He's a major asshole anyway.

[leftofcool]

9. Read that entire Amendment

The states may indeed sue

[HopeHoops]

43. They can sue - they just can't win. And I have read it - the entire Constitution - quite recently.

The 10th is often misinterpreted by the hold-over confederates. That's what's going on now.

[Xithras]

16. You misunderstand the amendment.

The 10th amendment grants rights to the states if they are not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Under our current constitution, the federal government cannot simply expand its power over the states by passing a new law. If it wants to expand its power over the states, it has to draft an amendment and add those new powers to the constitution itself.

You can argue, in many cases rightly, that the U.S. Constitution is a fairly outdated document that contains some conventions which fit poorly with our modern world. Whether you agree with it or not, until it IS replaced, it is the ultimate law of the land and the rulebook to which all other federal and state laws must play by.

[Statistical]

44. Thank you. A voice of reason.

I have to stay out of these topics. People who believe the federal govt has unlimited power by granting itself unlimited power raise my blood pressure too much.

Glad to see other people taking up the fight to educate fellow Americans on how American system works.

Simple version: Delegated vs. Reserved powers. If power isn't explicitly delegated to the federal govt it is reserved by the states (and the people).

[Xithras]

5. Depends on your definition of "valid"

The bill requires the states to set up, manage, and fund the exchanges for residents of their own states. If a state does not want to do that, then it is technically "valid" grounds to file suit over. The 10th Amendment essentially grants all states the right to sue over just about any federal law that imposes requirements on the states themselves.

Whether it's "valid" as in "the right thing to do" is a completely different discussion.

[Poll_Blind]

8. +1. n/t

PB

[gateley]

24. Yeah, in reading over the responses I realize I should have defined

what I meant. And you're absolutely right - I'm not concerned about the legalities, just whether or not it's the right thing to do.

I suspected as much, but just wanted to be sure -- wanted to give our AG the benefit of the doubt before I called with my threats. :7

Thank you!

[arcane1]

6. I liken it to the constant "investigations" of Clinton

They were all frivilous horseshit, but the sheer number of them allowed the media to define his presidency as "plagued by scandal" and similar things.

My guess is that these lawsuits will result in nothing except similar negative PR about the new law, and by extension Obama and the Dems.

[gateley]

25. Ahh -- good analogy. Thanks! nt

[Dappleganger]

7. Orly Taitz

Proof that you can bring a lawsuit for any crazy thing you want.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. Depends, if the AG's feel the law unconstitutionally violates rights then they can file suit.

I would hope, that regardless of the issue or political affiliation, that any law that could be challenged to be unconstitutional is challenged. That is one duty of the State Attourney Generals. In fact, the whole point of the Supreme Court is to determine the constitutionality of laws and rulings.

[paulsby]

32. exactly

this is part of rule of law, due process, seperation of powers, and judicial review

i support the HCR bill

i ALSO support the challenge in the courts, because it will answer constitutional questions that NEED to be answered.

it's why we have judicial review (marbury v. madison iirc) and a seperation of powers

[The Magistrate]

12. Not The Shadow Of A Starved Sparrow's Worth Of Legitimate Grounds, Ma'am

These are purely political stunts, and will be dismissed by the courts in short order. The people posturing about filing them know this perfectly well.

[pitohui]

14. no it's just political posturing

sore losers trying to put a stick in the wheel for everybody else

[SeattleVet]

15. Good luck getting through...

The AG's phones have been SWAMPED with people calling to oppose McKenna.

A Facebook group was set up last night to oppose McKenna, and early this morning passed 3,000 people; it's now over 4,000...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=102763306425603

He was thinking of running for Gov in 2012. I don't think he has a chance to finish his current term as AG - people are already getting geared up with the recall process! He couldn't be elected as dog catcher now. He was the ONLY (R) I think I've ever voted for, in almost 40 years. He's completely lost his Western Washington base over this. He used to come across as a somewhat decent, reasonable person, but now he has decided to try to make political hay with the Batshit Crazy wing of the GOP.

[paulsby]

33. he's doing the right thing

there is a constitutional question, and he is doing what his office demands he do. start the process of judicial review to ensure the rights of the citizens of WA are protected.

win or lose is not the point.

the point is that the bill needs judicial review.

and he , as AG, has standing to start that process

[tonysam]

17. Politics. The GOP is trying to angle for the midterms. n/t

[kestrel91316]

18. Not at the moment. No one has been harmed, and that's a basic requirement

for filing. Attorneys general are ATTORNEYS and they should know this. It's frivolous. If they pursue, they should all be impeached for imcompetence and wasting state money wilfully.

[thotzRthingz]

19. I presume, at some point, the "McCarran Ferguson Act" will be brought into play...

where STATES will want to preserve their rights to "regulate" the insurance industry.

ref: http://tinyurl.com/ylbe8dn (edited, to be a usable URL... addressing the "broken URL problem" here on the DU forums)

[Matariki]

20. They are challenging the mandate's constitutionality

Challenging the right of the government to force it's citizen's to purchase something from a private business. I don't think that's frivolous at all.

If we can ditch the mandate and keep the good stuff in the bill we might make some progress to real health CARE reform.

I'm actually glad they are challenging it. I feel like a broken record, but I've been horrified by the mandate and the very bad precedent it sets.

[thotzRthingz]

22. re: "If we can ditch the mandate" ... that would be a fantastic first step toward "fixes" (n/t)

[gateley]

26. I wouldn't mind that -- :-) nt

[leftofcool]

29. +1000

[paulsby]

34. you are exactly right

whether or not one supports the bill is totally tangential. i support it fwiw

what is important is that ANY law that congress passes is constitutional and what mcknenna is doing is using rule of law under seperation of powers, judicial review, etc. is protect the interests of the citizens of WA state from POSSIBLY unconstitutional federal encroachment and starting the process so that the judicial branch can do its job.

[Mari333]

41. agreed. If they are suing to dump the mandate Im with them

cannot believe so many dems are falling for this piece of shit bill.

[KittyWampus]

21. No, only anti-Federal Tax Nutters are pushing that crap. That's what their attempted arguments boil

down to.

[harun]

23. At this point it is pure political posturing. Could be something down the

road though, although I doubt any of the law will be struck down as unconstitutional. The Congressional powers boat left dock a long long time ago and we will hear people complain about it for a millennium but to manage a country of > 300 million people it is going to stay the way it is. Congress wants to do this, they will do it.

[gateley]

27. Thanks. I realize I should have clarified that I'm not concerned about the

legalities, but rather if it was just more BS Republican stuff or if there was possibly a concern on the AG's part something in the bill could hurt WA's citizens.

I should have known better. I never learn!

[harun]

46. I have the same question but as others have said it will be hard for

them to actually show how anyone is being harmed by this. It isn't like the people in those states are demanding their AG's do this. It is pure politics by them.

[gateley]

28. Thank you everybody! I'm off to give him a piece of my mind! nt

[paulsby]

31. yes

i;'ve read a lot of the legal analysis over at scotusblog and there are very smart legal minds who say it is a very difficult constitutional question

which is exactly WHY we have judicial review.

this is how the process works, this is how seperation of powers work (and kudos to mckenna) and this is how rule of law works.

the law was duly passed by proper process

now proper process continues in testing its constitutionality

as it should be

[Greyhound]

35. Relevance is meaningless and this is simply the opening salvo

of the weakest of force the opponents of change are going to demolish this monstrosity. Just wait until the corporate lawyers, with their unlimited budgets and sympathetic (purchased) legal process, get through with this...

But then, I'm just one of those crazy left-wing nut-jobs that just gets lucky time after time after time in predicting these things. After all, these are good people, doing the best they can for us.:eyes:

[ThomWV]

36. Not as long as the Constitution still has the Supremacy Clause

I believe its Article XI, Section 2 but I may be wrong on that. At any rate its the reason the Court will never hear any of those lawsuits.

[Statistical]

45. You completely misunderstand the Supremacy clause.

Supremacy Clause states the STATES can't deem a FEDERAL law unconstitutional.
The STATES also can't pass a law contradictory to FEDERAL law and have it "override" federal law.


Nothing in the Supremacy Clause prevents a private citizen form SUING the federal govt in FEDERAL COURT.
Notice that part FEDERAL COURT. If they win (and I am not saying they will) it will be the Judicial Branch of the FEDERAL GOVT (not the states) who determines the law passed by the legislative Branch of FEDERAL GOVT is Unconstitutional. Only FEDERAL GOVT can determine is a FEDERAL law is Unconstitutional but that is exactly what the AG are attempting to do.

Citizens have right to seek redress from federal govt. If they didn't then NOTHING federal govt ever did would be beyond reproach. Congress could pass a law tomorrow saying women are property. Try to sue. Sorry Supremacy Clause says you can't sue. Lawsuit thrown out. Luckily that isn't how it works. The founders would have to be brain dead stupid to design a set of checks and balances that only go one way.


Simple Version:
State of OR passing legislation blocking HCR - violation of Supremacy Clause
OR Supreme Court rules that HCR is Unconstitutional - violation of Supremacy Clause
OR Attorney General (who in this capacity is acting as a citizen of federal govt) filing suit in federal court - Supremacy Clause has no effect.

[Yo_Mama]

47. Maybe

See Printz v United States.

I don't think they'll win, but it depends on the details of implementation. Also, many states are facing fearsome budgetary problems, and they may just not have the money.

A lot of this bill does mandate state spending. I haven't read the lawsuits so I don't know precisely what this is all about.

I think the lawsuits won't prevail with regard to the Medicaid administrative issue, because the state can theoretically opt out and just not take the money. Of course in practice they can't do that, because their hospitals would go broke.

But there is no constitutional way to force states to set up the high-risk pools, for example. The federal government can set up and run a federal program administered by the feds, but it can't make the states set up a program and administer it. To get around this, Congress appropriates money and the states have to do certain things to claim the money. If states can't execute, they just can't claim the money.