It won’t be just the states suing to nullify unconstitutional health care “law"
by Devvy Kidd
“Another not unimportant consideration is that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.” --Joseph Story, associate justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Revolt by the sovereign states of the Union
I watched Comrade Pelosi on the boob tube before the vote for the obscene health care “reform” bill in the House. Another giant step towards the Sovietization of these united States of America. The Dictator in Chief isn’t going to get away with it, but we the people should not have to be put through this endless nightmare.
As I write this, Virginia is set to file a lawsuit as soon as the usurper in the White House signs these junk bills into “law.” The criminal syndicate in Obama’s Politburo and Department of Justice will scoff at the notion that this “law” violates many constitutional Amendments, such as the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth. So Virginia will use their favorite stand by - the Commerce Clause.
“Virginia’s attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation,” reported Reuters.
“Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.”
“If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce. If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?” Cuccinelli said.
Reuters added that Florida’s attorney general would file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys, including South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama, following Idaho’s lead. “The health care reform legislation… clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty,” said Florida AG. Idaho was the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if it tried to force residents to buy health insurance.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is symbolic
Federal laws supersede those of the states, say law experts. True, however, for a law to be valid, it must be constitutional and besides, what killed Comrade Hillary Clinton’s attempt back in 1993 was the Zellman memo, which stated: “(b) May the federal government use other actors in the governmental system and the private sector as its agents and give them orders as though they were parts of a prefectorial system? The short answer is ‘no.’ State governments are independent, although subordinated, sovereignties, not subdivisions of the federal government.
“Although the federal government may regulate many of their functions directly [as well, for example, it subjects state water districts to the Clean Water Act], it may not require them to exercise their own governmental powers in a manner dictated by federal law. The states may be encouraged, bribed or threatened into entering into joint federal state programs of various sorts, from unemployment insurance to Medicaid; but they may not be commanded directly to use their own governmental apparatus in the service of federal policy. There is a modest jurisprudence of the Tenth Amendment that seems to have settled on this proposition. See the DOJ [Dept. of Justice] memorandum for a fuller elaboration.”
Buying Votes for Health Care Bill with Amnesty for Illegal Aliens
While the democratic leadership giddily celebrated their victory, FederalObserver.com asked, what is next on their agenda? Is it another attempt at amnesty for over 20 million illegal aliens, or is it the passage of the Cap and Trade Act which would make it next to impossible for you to sell your home unless you retrofitted it to meet stringent energy conservation rules? Whatever it is, it won’t be good for us.
US News reported March 19 that Obama “succeeded in winning the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s endorsement of his health care reform legislation by pledging to push an overwhelmingly unpopular amnesty plan for millions of illegal aliens. In this apparent quid pro quo, the president’s promise to push amnesty in 2010 came just hours after members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus promised their support for the health care reform bill. The announcement also coincided with the release of an outline for amnesty legislation authored by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).”
The bill says on p.50 Sec. 152: “HC will be provided to all non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.” Those who willfully break the law are going to be rewarded - criminals who have stolen jobs that belong to Americans, as well as bankrupted our schools, hospitals and justice system. Add 20 million criminals into a government run health care nightmare and what do you think will happen?
“If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion,” wrote Frosty Woolridge on NewsWithViews in 2007.
Lawsuits by We the people
Never before in the history of this country has any American been forced to purchase goods or services by the government. Enforcement will come from IRS dragoons. If allowed to stand, the Outlaw Congress could pass a “law” that requires every American to buy pet insurance even if they don’t want it or own a pet, or force purchase of home owner’s insurance. The list would be endless.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids indentured servitude. A woman at a town hall meeting asked her Congress critter three questions: (1) Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that Congress has any legal authority to legislate health care? (2) Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution I will be forced to buy health insurance and (3) Where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that I have to pay for other people’s poor life style choices?
This nightmare the Outlaw Congress passed will cost jobs. It will run smaller businesses into bankruptcy. Employers must fight back. Railroad Retirement Board, supra, 295 U.S., at 368, established that Congress had no authority to establish a retirement scheme through its control over interstate commerce: “The catalogue of means …which might be imposed upon an employer …tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.”
Health care providers
The 2,700 page healthcare bill contains provisions already ruled unconstitutional by the courts. There are a massive number of sections where the government dictates what doctors would be required to do in their practice when it comes to patients, even if that doctor believes it not in the best interest of his/her patient. A few cases ruled upon include:
Linder v United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S. Ct. 446 (1925): “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.”
U.S. v Anthony, 15 Supp. 553, 555, (S.D. Ca., 1936) and U.S. v Evers, 453 F. Supp. 1141, 1150 (M.D. Ala., 1978), the court ruled: “...The direct control of medical practice has been left to the states.”
How can lawsuits be filed? Perhaps one has to wait until the enforcement of a provision, i.e., Joe Smith getting a letter from some paper pushing bureau-rat at one of the newly created boards or commissions under this law which says: Mr. Smith you must purchase health care insurance or get fined and go to jail. He says, “NO, see you in court.”
But maybe the lawsuits can be filed right away since we are to be taxed now, even though the provisions don’t kick in until 2014.
Employers must talk to each other about joining together to file one lawsuit, similar to the Chrysler lawsuit by Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon. They represent 82 former Chrysler dealerships. Think 10,000 employers around the country geared and ready to file. The same with health care providers. They have the right to challenge this mess in a court of law.
Law firms: Landmark Legal, headed up by Mark Levin, which already threatened to sue if the “Slaughter Rule” was used, would probably be willing to represent plaintiffs. Or possibly William J. Olson, Michael Minns and others like Donofrio and Pidgeon.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch, has a new legal entity, Freedom Watch. They have already filed a lawsuit. Hopefully there will be more as the stench from this bill is overwhelming.
The above article is excerpted from Devvy Kidd's March 23 blog on her website at www.devvy.com.
Nationalized healthcare provides "target-rich" environment for lawsuits.
In an article written last December by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), and J. Kenneth Blackwell from Family Research Council, the Obama/Reid/Pelosi “healthcare” bills are, legally speaking, a target-rich environment, as the bill contains key provisions that are unconstitutional. Three of its more glaring defects include:
1) The Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance; 2) Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes (none of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate); and 3) Congress’s powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court in United States v Lopez (1995) rejected the idea that Congress could require Americans to use their own money to purchase a good or service.