It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feds: Virginia has no grounds to block health care reform law

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Feds: Virginia has no grounds to block health care reform law


ifawebnews.com

Indicating that Congress is well within its right to require individuals to secure private health insurance under new federal law, attorneys for the Obama Administration are asking a federal judge to dismiss a suit filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

With President Barack Obama completing his signature on health reform law in March, Virginia’s Republican Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit names Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, as the defendant and is o
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.google.com
news.google.com




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
This is going to be a key battleground state in regards to state's rights and the power of the Federal government on the topic of Health care..

It sure appears to me that the Executive branch is overstepping it's bounds asking for the Virginia court to dismiss this case.

The Virginia ATTY General stands firm and according to a report on FNC, has said that the Feds need to bring their "A" game..

This will be one to watch


ifawebnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Our state legislature has also passed a provision that would not require VA residents to buy health insurance. Cuccinelli (AG) is basing his suit on the everlovin' 9th and 10th amendments. No wonder the Feds say there is no grounds for a lawsuit!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 



This is my state, and I know there will be a fight to the finish! Our Atty. Gen.
won't back down. Obama better be prepared.. We don't have mob mentality here. We are about individuals rights and the truth. I am confident we will prevail.

Thanks JackaMtn, for bringing this to my attention. I will be following situation
carefully.

Kindly,
Pax


[edit on 25-5-2010 by paxnatus]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I think this should make clear to everyone that the statists do not give a damn about the Constitution. There are only three parts of the Constitution relevant to a statist:

1) The language in the preamble stating "general welfare," which has been interpreted to literally mean the government can seize as much power and money as they see fit (notwithstanding the preamble is a non-operative piece of the document).

2) The commerce clause. "The fed. gov. may regulate interstate commerce as it sees fit." Of course in the case of Virginia it is clearly intrastate commerce.

3) The 16th amendment. "Give us your godd*mn money, even though this amendment was never ratified by 2/3 of the states."

Oh, and of course whenever an actual libertarian/Constitutionalist gets into power, claim the reduction of state powers is unconstitutional (hat tip to Orwell).

[edit on 25-5-2010 by tetrahedron]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I was just reading about this, looks like someone does not want this to reach the courts. If these idiots in power are so confident that it is constitutional then they should allow it go forward and watch the show.

These fools are scared as light will be shown on the entire bill full of special interest deals. We will learn more about who had a hand in shaping the bill, this is political death for all of those that had a hand in the actual language.

Also I really hope that once congress power shifts, they would repeal the commerce clause. That clause alone violates states individual rights. The fed should never have the authority to tell the states what to do, that is not what the founders wanted and stated directly in the constitution of the USA.


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.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by prionace glauca]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
It is in FEDERAL court. We will see what side this judge lines up on.

I hope this judge has his/her wet finger up in the air, because a cold wind is starting to blow, and might someday blow this judge all of the way to D.C.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
There are several things going on. Right now it is kind of like civil disobedience, the federal government has acted, and now they have a response, sending the ball back to them, and they have responded. Right now, it is just standard proceedure, with any case, to turn around and say, well they are wrong and it should be dismissed. The thing to watch is the following: If the court dismisses it, then before you say the judge is wrong, it is cause the State did not show enough evidence or make a conviencing argument, and if it goes forward, then the Federal government failed in its argument. Alot of people are watching this, especially the other states who are launching law suits to get this law struck down. Something tells me that any judge who pays attention to the news and actually does a lot of reading, may consider to weigh on the side of the states in this case, as more and more of them are joining in the law suits to get the new HC law struck down. But in either case it is a court case to pay attention to.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
There will always be an effort to keep this from the courts.

Constitutionally-grounded objections are something the Federal government always wants to avoid, because their actions are clearly in contention with the concept of our constitutional republic.

The truth is, the logical ramifications of this legislation serves to mandate all citizens to be contractually indebted to a private, for-profit, financial insurance institution, under penalty of law. Such a mandate is not, and can never be, "constitutionally" sanctioned without express changes in our social order.

"Being born into debt" comes to mind as a way to describe the scenario which the Federal government wishes to impose on the citizens - and despite the ostensible benevolence they wish to attribute to the legislation, their is a simple common-sense legal problem with it:

No third party, can oblige two free independent persons to enter into a binding contract should either party not wish it.

This law fails the constitutional test, unless the status of citizenship is rewritten to exclude free-will as a factor in contract law. Under this legislation there are no provisions for 'bickering' terms, or negotiating a contract, and thus, it is little more than the government mandating that the insurance industry be supplied, by law, with customers.... always.

They cannot win this case unless the Judicial Branch reverts to abandoning the Constitution as a basis for justice, and simply becomes an activist arm of the political administration.

Commerce is either an exercise of free will, or it is taxation, nothing more.

We already know where they stand on taxation, don't we?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Regarding the individual mandate to secure private insurance, or face a penalty starting in 2014, the federal attorneys said the provision applies only to individuals and not the state government.

“Because Virginia itself neither has sustained a direct or concrete injury, nor is in immediate danger of such an injury, it does not have standing to sue,” the filing states.


Being that Virginia is made up by the individuals that this provision applies to, I would say that it will indeed effect the state.


Congress estimated that Americans spent $2.5 trillion on health care in 2009 as 45 million Americans are uninsured, mostly because they cannot afford coverage, the filing states. However, these individual still require medical care – to the tune of $43 billion in 2008 – which is passed on to the health care market.

To aid this problem, Congress enacted many initiatives in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the attorneys claim, including health insurance exchanges, also set for 2014, and the individual mandate.



If this doesn't show the American people that their health care reform was intended only to help the insurance/health care industry, I don't know what will. They just laid out what they perceive to be the problem and what their solution is.




In concluding its motion to dismiss, lawyers for the Obama Administration say it is outside of the federal court’s purview, but if it did, the individual mandate “falls within Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce, as well as power to lay taxes and make expenditures for the general welfare.”



Yeah they're gonna tax us and the expenditures will line the pockets of the insurance company's CEO's.



In a statement to the Washington Post, Cuccinelli defended his suit, indicating that a person who chooses not to purchase health insurance is not engaged in commerce.


I really want to see how they're gonna get around that one.



ifawebnews.com...



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is just a matter of time before this law is found to be un constitutional.

It will go to the supreme court.
And it will not stand up to the test and will be repealed.

It's just a matter of time.

4-5 years at the most.

unless 2012 happens and we'll have other problems to deal with.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Here's a little info fro Wikipedia, ...

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


Forced participation or commandeering

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes.
******SKIP******
However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Totally unconstitutional. Just wait and see (maybe years down the road), infants born under the healthcare will be chipped. (just like animals at pet stores) I know there is a passage in the healthcare plan for implants, forget where though. All states should sue the fed for passing laws that are unconstitutional.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


I like this part of the article, ....

Feds: Virginia has no grounds to block health care reform law


The suit names Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, as the defendant

I didn't realize that SHE was the one who voted in this mandatory health care program!

Sure, she had something to do with it, but isn't it CONGRESS that should be sued for actually passing this bill and FORCING Americans in every state of this country (unconstitutionally) to buy health insurance!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
People who don't have health insurance right now generally go to emergency rooms to be treated. If they cannot pay they are still treated, as by law they cannot be turned away.

So what happens when millions of people are treated by hospitals without paying?

The hospital passes on the costs to those who do pay. For those of us who are covered by insurance, or who pay out of pocket, the prices on everything from bandages to aspirin to surgery are constantly increasing to pay for the hospital's losses on uninsured patients.

If people refuse to buy insurance then the cost of their emergency room treatment will raise the price of insurance for those who are covered. Ultimately these costs will be passed on to the government and reflected in our taxes.

The uninsured are costing everybody money now, and will continue to after health care reform is enacted.

I fail to see the ultimate benefit of legally allowing people to play the system.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


That is why Medicaid has been expanded, watch for the raise in Medicare taxation to come to support the millions that now can enjoy Medicaid.

Still the ones paying taxes that doesn't make the 26 thousand dollar mark for Medicaid will be forced into private insurance regardless.

like everything you get what you pay for.

Still people needs to understand that even if you can afford to pay for your medical insurance by mandate the deductibles, co-pay and out of pocket expenses including medications will not be included.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Gotta love the abuse of the 14th Amendment. You are correct that they do not want this going to court before they place all thier chess pieces.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


You may disagree with the case law, but the case law makes it pretty clear that the Health care reform bill fits well within Congress' powers to regulate interstate commerce. The case law allows Congress to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Given that the health care industry makes up over 10% of the GDP and health care providers engage in interstate commerce all the time (e.g. your local doctor uses medication and supplies that come from out of state), the health care industry that Congress regulates has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


In many lawsuits against the government, a government official in the Executive branch like a Cabinet member is often named as the defendant. The suits are often asking the court to enjoin (or stop) the executive branch official from acting.

I am not familiar with this particular suit, but my guess is the plaintiffs are asking the court to prevent the Secretary of Health and Human services from enforcing the health care reform bill. Congress can pass any legislation it wants, but the law or Constitution has not been violated unless somebody enforces or carries out the legislation.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by hotpinkurinalmint]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


.... but the case law makes it pretty clear that the Health care reform bill fits well within Congress' powers to regulate interstate commerce. ....


It is nevertheless amusing that the issue of health care, and the human condition, are driven and constrained by 'commerce' law.

Admiralty court anyone?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join