States to sue over healthcare bill

[spursncowboys]

Florida says several states to file healthcare lawsuit

Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:01am EDT






MIAMI, 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 (http://www.reuters.com/finance/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 (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=michael.connor&), Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)


UPDATE 1-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 (http://www.reuters.com/finance/deals/regulatory) | Bonds (http://www.reuters.com/finance/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.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2219276420100322
UPDATE 1-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 (http://www.reuters.com/finance/deals/regulatory) | Bonds (http://www.reuters.com/finance/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.

[clambake]

of course they will, lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

federal law > state law

Political Science 101

[Winehole23]

I wouldn't rule out the SC upholding such a challenge along rigid ideological lines, though it is unlikely.

[MiamiHeat]

florida, texas, south carolina, and virginia lol

yeah, let's just revive the Confederacy with all them southern states rebelling against the Union

Civil War 2.0, start raising your confederate flags Floridians and Virginians

[coyotes_geek]

I wouldn't rule out the SC upholding such a challenge along rigid ideological lines, though it is unlikely.

Agreed.

[boutons_deux]

Of course, the Repugs will be destructive and retrogressive, and lying and scare-mongering all the way, misbehaving exactly as they have so far.

McConnell has promised the same delaying tactics in the Senate.

If this bill is "illegal", so is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

[jack sommerset]

So it begins.

[coyotes_geek]

If this bill is "illegal", so is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Dare to dream.................

[SnakeBoy]

If this bill is "illegal", so is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

What commercial product does SS, Medicare/Medicaide require me to buy?

[Yonivore]

federal law > state law

Political Science 101
Only if it's constitutional.

I think the question of whether or not the federal government can require one to purchase a good or service is the question that will be at the heart of this challenge in the courts.

It'll be interesting to see how the administration and Democrats argue their side of that Constitutional question.

[PuttPutt]

Washington AG, others will sue over health care overhaul

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna says he’s joining in a challenge to the constitutionality of a health care overhaul bill passed by Congress.
McKenna said Monday he will join a multistate lawsuit against the measure once it’s signed into law.
The measure would extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, and for the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused.
McKenna, a Republican, says he believes the bill “unconstitutionally imposes new requirements on our state and on its citizens.”

[whottt]

Washington AG, others will sue over health care overhaul

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna says he’s joining in a challenge to the constitutionality of a health care overhaul bill passed by Congress.
McKenna said Monday he will join a multistate lawsuit against the measure once it’s signed into law.
The measure would extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, and for the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused.
McKenna, a Republican, says he believes the bill “unconstitutionally imposes new requirements on our state and on its citizens.”

I gotta admit Miami Heat hit the bullseye...nothing says Conderate like Washington State and Penn getting in on this :tu

[Spurminator]

This will be interesting, I have to say.

[ElNono]

Well, I can see challenging the constitutionality of parts of the law and, at the very best, have those portions striken out (Patriot Act comes to mind) but I don't really see a challenge to the entire law getting too far.

[jacobdrj]

If the SC rules in favor of this, the government, out of principle, should not defend against an invasion should it come to any of these states as not having their own standing armies violates those states' sovereignty. [/sarcasm]

[whottt]

This will be interesting, I have to say.

Happens all the time Spurm, business as usual.

[PublicOption]

Only if it's constitutional.

I think the question of whether or not the federal government can require one to purchase a good or service is the question that will be at the heart of this challenge in the courts.

It'll be interesting to see how the administration and Democrats argue their side of that Constitutional question.



yeah, see CIVIL WAR 1860-1865

[Yonivore]

Well, I can see challenging the constitutionality of parts of the law and, at the very best, have those portions striken out (Patriot Act comes to mind) but I don't really see a challenge to the entire law getting too far.
The law falls apart without the mandate.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think they're dead in the water on a 10th Amendment challenge.

The Commerce Clause arguments have a better chance, I think, but the Supreme Court has historically (and particularly recently) construed the scope of the Commerce Clause broadly and found a number of things that don't appear at first blush to implicate interstate commerce to be matters that implicate interstate commerce and are, therefore, within the ambit of Congressional lawmaking power. I've heard a few people make compelling arguments today to suggest that his law will easily meet that test; I've heard others make compelling arguments that it won't. Regardless, if the law is going to be reversed in the Supreme Court, I think the commerce clause is the most likely source of its doom.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The deal with the commerce clause is that it has always been used to regulate consumption.

Now you're trying to say it can be used to penalize a lack of consumption? Rather weak.

At no point in America's history have we been compelled under penalty of fine or imprisonment to consume a good. This bill sets a horrible precedent for the future of this country, and drives a stake through the heart of individual freedom.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

federal law > state law

Political Science 101

States Rights.

Political Science 101.

[Winehole23]

Amplify?

[Vici]

At no point in America's history have we been compelled under penalty of fine or imprisonment to consume a good.

Car insurance.

[ElNono]

The law falls apart without the mandate.

Not necessarily. The law has many parts. The deal with BigPharma, the bigger regulation on Insurance Cos, the removal of pre-existing conditions as an excuse for denying coverage, the mandate to have insurance or pay a fine...

I think the mandate to buy insurance from a private entity is probably what would have the better legs for a challenge, but that doesn't necessarily invalidates the rest of the law.

[ElNono]

Car insurance.

You can opt not to drive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They would have to overturn Garcia vs San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority.

I don't see it happening.

[balli]

Ah the fucking irony of the soulless morons. They clamor and cry over government irresponsibility and then cheer on as their states gear up to waste vast sums of taxpayer money on what they know is a losing battle. These fucking idiots passing themselves off as conservatives are as dumb as any group of people in humanity's history. What a bunch of hypocrite fucking losers republicans are.

[balli]

florida, texas, south carolina, and virginia lol

yeah, let's just revive the Confederacy with all them southern states rebelling against the Union

Civil War 2.0, start raising your confederate flags Floridians and Virginians

I wish. I'd gut the average republican a hundred times over, given the legal chance. You think these fucks would learn after getting their asses handled once already.

[whottt]

I wish. I'd gut the average republican a hundred times over, given the legal chance. You think these fucks would learn after getting their asses handled once already.

True...you'd think those fucking Pennsylvanians would have learned their lesson. Then again....Massachusetts obviously needs a reminder, they've obviously forgotten. And don't you think beheading them would be better? Or perhaps flying some planes into their buildings?


Working a death threat and words of physicial violence out of of someone used to be an accolmplishment. It was pretty much the holy grail of trolling achievement, yet you have almost singlehandedly rendered it a worthless achievement. In any case, keep doiing what you're doing. People will eventually get sick of you and run you from this board because what you are doing crosses the line, just not enough have noticed it yet. And they will...I always tend to catch this sort of thing first for some odd reason. What you are doing crosses the line.


Yes you need an outlet for the righteous rage you have for being born into a life of poverty and having not...but this really isn't the place to talk about threats of violence in every other post you make.

I suggest you go here and unload your oppressed anger. It's a more appropriate location and the targets will actually have views similar to the ones you bigot and generalize to non-Democrat whites.




http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

Most importantly, you'll be with people that operate on a similar emotional and intellectual level to yourself, sort of the other side of your coin(although you are much more prone to expressions of violence, they're pretty much concerned with voting Obama out in 2012).


Word to the wise, they are predominantly Ron Paul fans and overwhelmingly anti-war and IMHO, majority anti-israel( Just like Adam Gadan :))

I am pretty certain that the most fanatical among them actually hate the jews more than blacks, kinda like the Nazis did. A lot of them wanted to see Obama get elected(not for good reasons), and some of them are even in favor of the health care bill. Have at it. And remember, be yourself :tu

[LnGrrrR]

OUtcomes like this are why a public option should probably have been included in the bill.

[Winehole23]

Assuming one supported a public option in the first place, yes, but legal contingency can be a bitch too, like you suggested.

[boutons_deux]

"OUtcomes like this are why a public option should probably have been included in the bill."

It's a Dem trap.

If the Repugs shoot down mandated insurance from for-profit corps, and the Dems come back with medicare-for-all public option, which already has growing support in Congress.

Many of the people who dislike the current bill do so because it doesn't have a public option, iow, they think the bill didn't go far enough.

[exstatic]

I wouldn't rule out the SC upholding such a challenge along rigid ideological lines, though it is unlikely.

I think Scalia has been quoted as saying these kinds of suits are frivolous and will not be upheld. Not health care in particular, but states-rights kinds of issues.

[Nbadan]

The opposition of the opposition...

k5Ng5lYw3kE

So, who does the TX Attorney General Greg Abbott represent? Certainly not the millions of Texans who will benefit from health-care coverage...

[Nbadan]

1934

http://i.imgur.com/reOAh.jpg

[Winehole23]

Well, that's the great efflorescence of state power after TR.

That's when the bureaucratization corollary to the technocratic management of everyday life really got into full swing in the USA.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The opposition of the opposition...

k5Ng5lYw3kE

So, who does the TX Attorney General Greg Abbott represent? Certainly not the millions of Texans who will benefit from health-care coverage...

Nice job..

[spurster]

Wasn't the GOP in favor of privatizing SS? Wouldn't that have been forcing us to buy a private service?

[coyotes_geek]

Wasn't the GOP in favor of privatizing SS? Wouldn't that have been forcing us to buy a private service?

No. The plan, at least as I remember it, was to give people control of their own SS accounts and to let them have the option investing their money in the stock market. An option, but not required.

[EVAY]

The opposition of the opposition...

k5Ng5lYw3kE

So, who does the TX Attorney General Greg Abbott represent? Certainly not the millions of Texans who will benefit from health-care coverage...

Wow, what an intelligent, articulate woman! After all the coverage lately of the Palins and the Coulters and the Bachmans and Pelosi, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to a woman who was well informed and quick with her position. Good find. Why can't this woman run for some national office?

[cheguevara]

federal law > state law

Political Science 101

[EVAY]

No. The plan, at least as I remember it, was to give people control of their own SS accounts and to let them have the option investing their money in the stock market. An option, but not required.

The problem I had with this suggestion, CG, at the time, was that if the "opt outers' lost all their money to a Bernie Madoff-type (and no one can say that it won't happen again) that the taxpayers are still on the hook for those folks, even though 'those folks' never paid in.

I believe that what you describe, CG, is what many of us have done over the years while making our required SS pay-ins; that is, we invested some of our discretionary funds for retirement in the private markets. We had to choose to defer some gratification of some potential consumption in order to do so, but that was our choice and we did it. Therefore, today, we are not dependent on SS for our retirement income, but our responsibility as citizens is still to pay in on it.

Nothing about the SS taxes precludes you or anyone else from establishing private retirement funds. I understand that you want to direct all of your potential retirement funds yourself, and by so doing, exclude yourself from SS taxes. What I'm saying is that your responsibility as a citizen (to pay into the fund) neither stops you from doing something else nor exempts you from paying in. Simply saying "I want out and I promise I won't ask for help when I'm older" isn't the kind of promise that a society can opt for.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I wish. I'd gut the average republican a hundred times over, given the legal chance. You think these fucks would learn after getting their asses handled once already.

As evidenced by the recent gubernatorial and senatorial special elections.

You have an excellent point :tu

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"OUtcomes like this are why a public option should probably have been included in the bill."

It's a Dem trap.

If the Repugs shoot down mandated insurance from for-profit corps, and the Dems come back with medicare-for-all public option, which already has growing support in Congress.

Many of the people who dislike the current bill do so because it doesn't have a public option, iow, they think the bill didn't go far enough.


Growing support in Congress? Saying the public option has growing support in Congress is about like saying that boutons is going to get laid this year. In short, it's a farce.

[George Gervin's Afro]

As evidenced by the recent gubernatorial and senatorial special elections.

You have an excellent point :tu

you're right the minority NEVER wins elections in off cycle years. the majority party NEVER loses seats in off cycle elections... excellent point! Were you born yesterday?

[spursncowboys]

you're right the minority NEVER wins elections in off cycle years. the majority party NEVER loses seats in off cycle elections... excellent point! Were you born yesterday?

http://students.georgiasouthern.edu/greeklife/George-W-Bush.jpg
Are you sure about that?

[benefactor]

I'd gut the average republican a hundred times over, given the legal chance.
You probably wouldn't.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://students.georgiasouthern.edu/greeklife/George-W-Bush.jpg
Are you sure about that?

I am as sure as the day is long... there are exceptions to the rule (see Bush) like winning a lottery..

[coyotes_geek]

The problem I had with this suggestion, CG, at the time, was that if the "opt outers' lost all their money to a Bernie Madoff-type (and no one can say that it won't happen again) that the taxpayers are still on the hook for those folks, even though 'those folks' never paid in.

I believe that what you describe, CG, is what many of us have done over the years while making our required SS pay-ins; that is, we invested some of our discretionary funds for retirement in the private markets. We had to choose to defer some gratification of some potential consumption in order to do so, but that was our choice and we did it. Therefore, today, we are not dependent on SS for our retirement income, but our responsibility as citizens is still to pay in on it.

Nothing about the SS taxes precludes you or anyone else from establishing private retirement funds. I understand that you want to direct all of your potential retirement funds yourself, and by so doing, exclude yourself from SS taxes. What I'm saying is that your responsibility as a citizen (to pay into the fund) neither stops you from doing something else nor exempts you from paying in. Simply saying "I want out and I promise I won't ask for help when I'm older" isn't the kind of promise that a society can opt for.

Agreed. And for the record I do not support privatizing social security. The system I want is one where we give each individual a personal social security account that is funded by that individual's contributions, with those contributions invested in US treasury notes (i.e. safe).

[Winehole23]

US treasury notes (i.e. safe)How sure do you feel about that? How safe is US money say, 30 years out from now?

[coyotes_geek]

How sure do you feel about that? How safe is US money say, 30 years out from now?

If US treasuries aren't safe then I'd think we've got bigger problems to worry about than whether or not people have social security.

[Winehole23]

I used not to worry about this. Now, I worry about it some.