Wednesday, March 24, 2010

14 AGs File Suit Against Obamacare

Net Right Daily (NRD) (h/t Adam Bitely) reports that 14 attorneys general have filed suit against Obamacare or are considering doing so. The list as per NRD is below.

I am skeptical of the courts' willingness to rescind this unconstitutional law. The Constitution died in the mid 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt strong armed the Supreme Court into recognizing the National Labor Relations Act as constitutional. Since then, the phrase "interstate commerce" has been mutilated to permit the federal government to do thousands of things that the Constitution prohibits. In fact, the Supreme Court has turned into a rubber stamp board for a gang of racketeers, the US Congress. There is no social contract in America. There is only the imposition of violence by socialist thugs.

Ken Cuccinelli – Attorney General – Virginia

Troy King – Attorney General – Alabama

Bill McCollum –Attorney General - Florida

Jon Bruning – Attorney General – Nebraska

Tom Corbett – Attorney General – Pennsylvania

Greg Abbot – Attorney General – Texas

Henry McMaster – Attorney General – South Carolina

Robert McKenna – Attorney General – Washington

Mark L. Shurtleff – Attorney General – Utah

Wayne Stenehjem – Attorney General – North Dakota

Marty J. Jackley – Attorney General – South Dakota

Michael Cox – Attorney General -- Michigan,1607,7-164--233880--,00.html

Lawrence Wasden – Attorney General – Idaho

John W. Suthers – Attorney General – Colorado

James D. “Buddy” Caldwell – Attorney General – Louisiana


vakeraj said...

As an aspiring physician, I am honestly, honestly scared by this law. I really see now future for the medical profession. Innovation will grind to a halt, care will become more expensive, and rationing will be a virtual necessity under Obamacare. I don't know if America is going the way of Detroit as Gary North wrote on LRC today(, but things are almost assuredly going to get worse.

Anonymous said...

I would love to see the circumlocution needed to explain how the interstate commerce clause justifies a law pertaining to health insurance, which we are not allowed to purchase across state lines.

Anonymous said...

The Interstate Commerce Clause is not the issue. The Taxation Clause applies and HCR is Constitutional. The "fine" is in reality a tax on individuals who do not have health insurance.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Mitchell Langbert said...

HCR is not constitutional if you believe in the Constitution. If you believe that the Supreme Court has the right to create the Constitution as it goes along, then pretty much anything it decides to say is Constitutional. But the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to tax people directly, without apportionment. Nor does it give the federal government the right to set up a health plan. Nor is a health plan relevant to the ordinary operations of government, which Hamilton argued gave it the right to set up a national or central bank.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nowhere does the Constitution say that the United States has the authority to regulate insurance, to create or mandate insurance benefits or to charge taxes to individuals.

If it did have that power, then why was the sixteenth amendment passed? If there had to be a sixteenth amendment to authorize the income tax (which incidentally, was declared unconstitutional anyway) then why was the sixteenth amendment needed? The sixteenth amendment reads:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In other words, if the Supreme Court wants to say that health care regulation is constitutional, it can just as easily say that death camps for Jews are constitutional. It is simply a body of tyrants who issue authoritarian edicts, not a judicial body.