Thread: Health bill lawsuits are going nowhere

I see you ira, lay it on me.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by jmw_man

Originally Posted by Consultant

I an awesome government teacher back in my high school days who explained Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness once and the right to Life is the right to not be killed by your government for disagreeing with it. It is not a guarantee of health.

who knows what they meant when they wrote that...

Read the memoirs of the founders and you will get some insight.

do you have a link, google is having trouble finding them...

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

There. How's that?

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the description above, and are not considered broad grants of a general legislative power to the federal government since the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

* the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[1][2] and,
* that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States was the correct interpretation.[3][4] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

This will be an interesting case to watch in the courts. Here is a link to the actual complaint filed:

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/...arelawsuit.pdf

The best argument raised is that the health-care bill violates the Commerce Clause of the constitution (Art. I, Section 8 (3)). In that the bill requires citizens to engage in intrastate commerce which would exceed the Constitutional mandate. Generally, the commerce clause only applies to interstate commerce.

Ultimately, this challenge is likely to fail at the trial court level as the issue is not ripe - the requirements only apply in the future and therefore the states currently lack standing to raise the issue. Generally, the courts will not rule on hypothetical issues. That being said, they picked the court to file suit in carefully. The Pensacola division of the Northern District of Florida is very conservative - and one of the most conservative Judges of the division was assigned to the case.

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

There. How's that?

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is only the latter that is referred to as the "General Welfare Clause" of this document. These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are exceptions to the description above, and are not considered broad grants of a general legislative power to the federal government since the U.S. Supreme Court has held:

* the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments";[1][2] and,
* that Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause elaborated in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States was the correct interpretation.[3][4] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

but where are the memoirs?

Originally Posted by digital

Exactly.

The lawsuits are useless and have no legal merit.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

14 states file action against the US Congress......for fun. That's why they do it. Because if it's meritless.....it can't be for any other reason. Lawyers love to get embarassed and lose their ass in front of the supreme court.

I bet the law gets struck down for more than just forcing people to buy/be taxed for not buying health care. the bill is just too broad, and isn't adressing a nationally compelling issue that isn't already being addressed at the individual state level, as the individual states feel the need to do so.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by digital

Exactly.

The lawsuits are useless and have no legal merit.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

14 states file action against the US Congress......for fun. That's why they do it. Because if it's meritless.....it can't be for any other reason. Lawyers love to get embarassed and lose their ass in front of the supreme court.

I bet the law gets struck down for more than just forcing people to buy/be taxed for not buying health care. the bill is just too broad, and isn't adressing a nationally compelling issue that isn't already being addressed at the individual state level, as the individual states feel the need to do so.

Care to make it interesting?

Originally Posted by iravedic

Ultimately, this challenge is likely to fail at the trial court level as the issue is not ripe - the requirements only apply in the future and therefore the states currently lack standing to raise the issue. Generally, the courts will not rule on hypothetical issues. That being said, they picked the court to file suit in carefully. The Pensacola division of the Northern District of Florida is very conservative - and one of the most conservative Judges of the division was assigned to the case.

That may be true for the florida case, but virginia stands on it's own, given they passed a law specifically prohibiting the government from mandating health care insurance purchases on individuals. So....at least virginian's have standing in that respect.

As for ripeness......sure, nothing conveniently takes effect till 2013 or whenever. But the supreme court can side step around such things if it feels like it. wouldn't be the first time. That, or the same exact suits are brought in 2013 instead of now. For something as far reaching and as invasive as legislation like this is....I doubt the supreme court is going to wait to rule until it goes into effect, given the effects are substantial, and if unconstitutional, unjustified.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Care to make it interesting?

I love the assumption that the courts are going to act as politically inept and petty as the congress and executive branch does. Keep believing that.