http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aJpCMPuIgICA
Twelve states plan to challenge the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul passed yesterday by the U.S. House, according to statements made today.
The states that say they will sue are Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington.
“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” he said in a press release. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person -- by definition -- is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”
And Troy King says he also believes the law is unconstitutional.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/03/alabama_attorney_general_troy_4.html
King told The Associated Press he is concerned the health care bill that the U.S. House approved tramples "state sovereignty" by requiring people to have health insurance and by taxing people for not having insurance.
He said his office is in position to move on the issue once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law.
And those won't be the only lawsuits pending, once the President signs the bill into law.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=130621
Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, agreed, telling WND among the primary questions that need to be resolved is whether the government can mandate citizens to purchase or obtain health insurance by federal fiat.
"It is a dangerous precedent," he said.
Such thinking logically could be expected to affect other decisions: If the government opposes a product on any grounds, can it be forbidden? Or conversely, if the government likes a product, can it be required?
Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund also were on top of a related situation, moving forward in four different lawsuits to ensure that conscience protections – the right to decide a procedure is objectionable and to not perform it – is maintained for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others.
And according to Liberty Counsel, "The threat to liberty posed by the health-care bill goes beyond health care. If Congress can get away with this expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will vanish.
So the legal challenges will start shortly after the bill is signed into law, and there will be a LOT of lawsuits.
This brings up something that I'd like to see, a change to the way we do things now. Currently, in order to challenge the constitutionality of a law, you first have to "have standing," which essentially means you have to be harmed by the law or break it. And it takes YEARS for these suits to travel through the legal system to their final resolution.
But the laws most needing constitutional challenge are new laws, so I'd like to see a new procedure established to expedite constitutional review of new laws by the Supreme Court. ObamaCare is a case in point, where several aspects of the law are questionable in a constitutional context, and those questions should be resolved before the law is put in place and implemented. Our current system allows the passage and implementation of unconstitutional laws for YEARS, if not decades.
We need some way to quickly resolve constitutional questions about newly passed laws.
The legal challenges will go forward, and I wish them luck. But any resolution will be a long time coming. Shouldn't we try for something better?
0 comments:
Post a Comment