Florida says several states to file healthcare lawsuit

Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:01am EDTMIAMI, March 22 (Reuters) - Florida's attorney general will file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys general opposing the healthcare legislation passed by Congress, a spokeswoman said on Monday.

Bonds

"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.

"On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens." (Reporting by Michael Connor, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

Virginia to sue U.S. over healthcare reform
Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:22am EDT* Virginia to file lawsuit after Obama signs bill into law

Regulatory News | Bonds

* AG: Congress lacks power to force insurance purchases

NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

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," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

Cuccinelli said he plans to file his lawsuit in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, after President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which he is expected to do.

The bill requires most Americans to have health coverage, and provides subsidies to help lower-income workers afford it. [ID:nLDE62L01U]

No Republican voted for the bill, which passed the House on Sunday night by a 219-212 vote. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; editing by John Wallace)

I dunno, but how many SC Justices do you bet are drooling over the chance to put Obama and his agenda in its place after this year's SotU?

I wouldn't hit it with a heavy artillery round.

I wouldn't hit it even with YOUR heavy artillery round.

I wouldn't hit it with a heavy artillery round.

What's the over/under on the Federal Department of Justice attempting to deny standing?

What's the over/under on the Federal Department of Justice attempting to deny standing?

Depends what theory the states try to argue on. If the states argue that the individual mandate is unConstitutional because it forces individual citizens to buy insurance, they probably will be denied standing, and rightly so.

On the other hand, if they argue that it's unConstitutional because it violates the 10th Amendment or because it provides kickbacks to certain states and not others (i.e. isn't "for the General Welfare"), then they'd probably be granted standing, though those are most likely going to be losing arguments anyway.

"I don't like a lot of the decisions that the legislature makes every day. Do I go up and sue them? And do you have the basis to do so, more to the point?" Lynch said in a late-morning interview, characterizing the looming lawsuits in a dozen states as "political posturing....But at the outset, moments after the vote, when they're crying and putting up [lawsuit threats] on Facebook in Texas first, there's a procedure that we go through as attorneys general when something is more substantive, and this seems to be a partisan driven mechanism," said Lynch, a Democratic candidate for governor.

"To me it's a moment that should be celebrated," he said of Sunday's health-care vote.

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, mandating that state judges uphold them, even if state laws or constitutions conflict...

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

...The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to come in effect only when the federal government has acted in an area. In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute." In effect, this means that a state law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of two conditions exists:

1. Compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, or

2."...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

Which is why all the State laws/constitutions do is provide the State with standing to argue the unConstitutionality of the Federal law, not exempt them from Federal law.

The argument is "the Federal law you just passed is prohibited by the US Constitution; (usually because) it is one of the powers reserved to the several States. Thus, you're interfering with our right to include this in our State Constitution/law."