Text of Multi-State Lawsuit Online

The text of the lawsuit is in and can be found at website below.

Plaintiffs, STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through BILL McCOLLUM,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; HENRY MCMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JON BRUNING,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA; GREG ABBOTT,
3
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; MARK SHURTLEFF,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF UTAH; JAMES D. “BUDDY”
CALDWELL, STATE OF LOUISIANA; TROY KING, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF ALABAMA; MICHAEL A. COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN; JOHN W. SUTHERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO; THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ROBERT M. McKENNA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; LAWRENCE G.
WASDEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; AND MARTY J.
JACKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, file this
action against Defendants, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES (HHS); KATHLEEN SEBELIUS,

www.oag.state.tx.us...


Read it for yourself and see if it has merits.

Parts of Constitution they are using to say that this new law is unconstitutional.


Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to
the Constitution.

violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States

in violation
of Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

The Act exceeds Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution of
the United States, and cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause,

I believe that once it's signed into law, the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution goes into effect.

Article VI, Clause 2...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

reply to post by bg_socalif


Could you elaborate more by what you mean?

I understand that since Obama signed it, it is now law unless it is declared unconstitutional at some future date.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by bg_socalif

 

Could you elaborate more by what you mean?

I understand that since Obama signed it, it is now law unless it is declared unconstitutional at some future date.

This is what i get from it...

Basically it becomes federal law, so no state judiciary can go against it, regardless if it's contrary to that state's law or constitution.

Now the US Supreme Court could take it up, though i doubt they'd rule against unless there were some clear cut violations of the Constitution.

FYI, i'm against the HCR on many levels. All it is, is a bailout for the insurance companies, under the guise of "Healthcare Reform", IMO.

A very good article looking at the lawsuit that was filed and how legal scholars view the case.

Pro

Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown Law School, agrees. "The individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented," he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that appeared this weekend. "Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another."

Con

And Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington Law School, who has served as a special counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy, likewise believes the bill is almost certain to pass muster. "I think it's very very unlikely that the mandate would be struck down as unconstitutional," Kerr told TPMmuckraker.

Potential Downfall of lawsuit

There's another problem with the lawsuit. Many judges are often reluctant to hear a challenge to a law until it has actually gone into effect -- what legal types call a "ripeness" issue. The individual mandate won't go into effect until 2014 -- by which time factors like the composition of the Court, and the underlying politics driving the lawsuit, may well have changed.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com...

reply to post by bg_socalif


I think the Supremacy law may indeed trump the states that are passing legislation to prohibit the federal healthcare law in their respective states.

To supporters of Barack Obama’s health-care plan, these bills are nothing more than theatre. The constitution’s supremacy clause is clear: federal law trumps state law, and should congressional Democrats suddenly find their spines and pass the bill, a state could no more ban it than it could enact segregation or declare their citizens exempt from federal income tax.

www.economist.com...

But I fail to see how it could have an impact on the lawsuit. IMO the lawsuit will fail or succeed based on its own merit.

Originally posted by bg_socalif
I believe that once it's signed into law, the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution goes into effect.

Article VI, Clause 2...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

I think PA may have a loop hole here. "COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA" Not the State of Pennsylvania. But I could be wrong.

Anyone?

-Al

This is getting exciting. From what I have read, and keep in mind I am no lawyer, it sounds like they have a solid argument. The bill of rights was put in there for a reason. They are the basis of our country; they are what set us apart from England when we chose to become a free and independent country. Granted the federal government has stepped on states’ toes before, but they were always able to wiggle out of it. Last summer, more than half our countries states were ready to start a lawsuit to this degree, but each for their own reason. They decided to wait and see, this is not a fight they can afford to lose. Now here we are less than a year later and he has managed to step on far too many toes.
The Bill of Rights trumps all. This is not different than if he tried to sign something stating we are no longer allowed to bear arms. He can’t do that. He also cannot claim power not named in the constitution that takes powers away from the state. Granted to test this, a state would have to file suit stating the govt. went too far.
The way I see it, after reading that, if the attorney generals lose this, the Bill of Rights is worth nothing, and the govt. can do what it wants. That does not insure domestic tranquility.

I love this part:

The Act violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States, and runs afoul of the Constitution’s principle of federalism, by commandeering
the Plaintiffs and their employees as agents of the federal government’s regulatory
scheme at the states’ own cost.

– bold by me
Priceless!!! aaaarrrrggg

This issue is a very heated one.

With that in mind, I am curious how that will factor into the courts decision.

I mean do the courts really want controversy as when they got involved with Gore vs Bush.

Just a thought.

Here is the text of the lawsuit filed by the Commonwealth of Virgina

PDF File

Here is a great source of information
Legal dictionary

It lists the times the 10th amentment has been used in court.

It states at the end...

The states ratified the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation created a national government that was too weak to defend itself and could not raise or collect revenue. Although the federal Constitution created a much stronger centralized government, the Founders did not want the states to lose all of their power to the federal government, as the colonies had lost their powers to Parliament. The Tenth Amendment continues to be defined as courts and legislatures address the balance of federal and state power.

in regards to the Fair Labor Standards Act..

the Court said that the Minimum Wage and maximum hour provisions of this act significantly altered and displaced the states' abilities to structure employment relationships in such areas as fire prevention, police protection, sanitation, public health, and parks and recreation. These services, the Court emphasized, are historically reserved to state and local governments. If Congress may withdraw from the states the authority to make such fundamental employment decisions, the Court concluded, "there would be little left of the states' separate and independent existence," or of the Tenth Amendment.

bold by me again.

Originally posted by AlBeMet

Originally posted by bg_socalif
I believe that once it's signed into law, the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution goes into effect.

Article VI, Clause 2...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

I think PA may have a loop hole here. "COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA" Not the State of Pennsylvania. But I could be wrong.

Anyone?

-Al

Yup, you're wrong. The term "Commonwealth" has historical but no legal significance. There are 4 Commonwealths that are states: PA, VA KY, and MA. Just like the other 46, they were admitted to the Union under Article IV of the Constitution, and are, therefore, states subject to the Supremacy Clause. Not to be confused with Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana, which are both Commonwealths, but not states. They are unincorporated territories.

reply to post by jam321
[

" Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws. "


" Lawrence Friedman, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the New England School of Law in Boston, said before the suit was filed that it has little chance of success. He said he can't imagine a scenario where a judge would stop implementation of the health care bill. "


Sounds like the SCOTUS will have to think long and hard over this one If it even gets there . I have a Bad Feeling about this , I think Obama and his Cohorts covered their Bases Legally on this HCB .

What do you think ?

I am glad there are states that still stand for the LIGHT


THIS NEW #IN HEALTH CARE BILL IS SLAVERY!!!!!!!!!!;
IF WE DONT BUY HEALTH INSURANCE WE HAVE TO PAY 3% INCOME TAX?!?!?!?
WTF?!?!?!?!?

THIS IS EXTORTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 23-3-2010 by DjSharperimage]

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


I am sure that they anticipated this scenario and planned accordingly.

I also have to admit that this could very well be a ploy by the Republicans.

They might have already known it would fail, but could say they fought for our rights.

To be honest, I don't think we can trust any of the branches.

The commerce clause does indeed cover it. I dont agree with it but it does cover it. The SCOTUS cases also back the claim. In the losers brackets none of the qualifacations have been met for loss to the FEDs...

I am looking into two more amendments and then I have to find that reference to the IRS being unable to punish for noncompliance.

Yes they planned it well. But the game is not over....

I would suggest looking into your states recall laws of federal senators....

Of note I have to remember to tell yall to include that as well... You reserve the right as a state to recall a senator ... GTG will be back on later keep up the fight.

The next Dream Team?

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said Thursday he plans to appoint a special attorney general to sue the federal government over President Obama`s new health care reform law. The announcement comes after Attorney General Thurbert Baker decline the governor`s request to sue. Perdue said that he plans to assemble a team of pro bono lawyers for the case.

`I think in this economy, in this America that we all grew up in and love, forcing people to purchase things they dont want to purchase, I think, violates a constitutional right that they have,` Perdue said

www.coosavalleynews.com...