It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Texas case could decide health care reform suit
State officials argue a 1992 ruling on school gun possession is relevant
A Texas high school student's decision to bring a .38-caliber handgun to school in 1992 could end up at the center of the legal fight over President Barack Obama's health care reform plan.
Alfonso Lopez Jr.'s arrest at Edison High School in San Antonio set in motion a legal battle that may prove crucial to 13 state attorneys general fighting the new law.
Lopez, a senior when he was arrested for handgun possession in March 1992, ended up facing federal charges of violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. But the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, threw out his conviction five years later on the grounds that Congress exceeded its regulatory authority under the Constitution when it approved the 1990 law, which makes it a violation of federal law to possess a firearm in a school zone.
Commerce clause cited
In filing a lawsuit last week challenging the new health care law's mandate that everyone must have health insurance, the 13 state attorneys general — including Greg Abbott of Texas — cited the same legal reasoning that went into the Lopez ruling.
At issue in both cases is the Constitution's commerce clause, which limits the regulatory powers of Congress to matters involving interstate commerce. In the Lopez decision, conservatives on the court led by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist ruled that the 1990 gun law was unconstitutional because it had nothing to do with commerce between states.
Upholding the federal government's right to control guns in school zones would give Congress “a general police power of the sort retained by the states,” Rehnquist wrote for the majority.
That's almost exactly the argument the states are making now in a lawsuit filed March 23.
Abbott and the other 12 state attorneys general say that health care does not meet the legal definition of interstate commerce, rendering illegal the congressional mandate that all Americans must purchase health insurance.
“In the past 15 years the Supreme Court has scaled back Congress when they've tried to inject themselves into purely state matters,” said one of the 13, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, in an interview on MSNBC.
Read more: Huston Chronicle
Originally posted by whattheh
I have insurance from my company, however, I am going, and I hope many others will as well, Refuse to provide any information on my tax return stating medical confidentiality.
Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
Like it or not, people need to get past the health care bill , it passed.
As for the states that have filed law suits, the cases WILL be dismissed.
And as for being repealed the Senate needs a 2/3 majority vote and the Pres. signature. Do you really think Obama will sign it ?
This is all a ploy by republicans to get campaign contributions and support.
Don't believe me? Let's see how many states cases against the health care program are even open come November.
Don't through good money after bad, and stop buying into a two party system that has failed.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
The two cases are comparing apples and oranges. There is a difference between gun rights and the cost of healthcare and the effects on the economy, on the individual and on the hospitals. Whether everyone likes it or not, everyone is affected, not just a boy going to school.