Unconstitutional!: Multi-state Lawsuit Against Obamacare
The states currently involved are: Texas, Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota
State Attorneys General Agree To File Constitutional Challenge To Obamacare Immediately
3/21/2010
In late breaking news this evening after the historic passage of Obamacare through the House of Representatives by Democrats over bipartisan opposition, many state attorneys general held a conference call in which it was decided that they would file a multi-state suit alleging the newly-passed Obamacare is unconstitutional immediately after President Barack Obama signs the act, which is expected on early next week. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott broke the news on his Facebook page:
Just got off the AG conference call. We agreed that a multi-state lawsuit would send the strongest signal. We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights.
While the entire roster of claims regarding unconstitutionality is obviously unknown at this time, it appears that a central focus of the initial immediate filing (which will undoubtedly be amended several times) will be whether the individual mandate, which requires American citizens to purchase health insurance from private insurers, is a constitutional exercise of the federal government’s proscribed powers. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced late Sunday night after the conference call that Virginia planned on joining the multi-state litigation against Obamacare:
Virginia will file suit against the federal government charging that the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office confirmed last night.
Cuccinelli is expected to argue that the bill, with its mandate that requires nearly every American to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The attorney general’s office will file suit once President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, which could occur early this week.
“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,” Cuccinelli said in a statement last night.
Finally, Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum announced Florida would join the suit:
ORLANDO, FL — Moments after Congress voted to approve President Obama’s health care legislation, Florida’s Attorney General announced he will file a lawsuit to declare the bill unconstitutional.
Bill McCollum will join Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota to file a lawsuit against the federal government.
“The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty,” McCollum said in a statement distributed late Sunday night.
“If the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens.”
As noted above, many other states are also expected to join the multi-state litigation set to be filed this week as soon as President Obama signs the bill, originally passed on Christmas Eve 2009 by the Senate and today passed by the House. This matter will present the largest challenge in decades to the present jurisprudence on the Commerce Clause, which presently allows essentially unlimited federal government regulation of any economic activity. One key factor for the Court is state activism to oppose federal encroachment in any given area, and a total of 37 states may pass specific legislation to battle the Obamacare provision requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance:
BOISE, Idaho — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
This litigation will open a new chapter in the Obamacare battle in federal district court, where political fireworks are sure to ensue and a momentous decision is set to be made by the trial court and then, in all likelihood, the Supreme Court of the United States. President Obama may yet regret the recent public fights between him and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito (who Obama filibustered as a Senator), as the existing acrimony between the branches cannot be helpful for the President’s chances of avoiding a damaging Supreme Court ruling that his signature initiative is unconstitutional.
http://centristnetblog.com/daily-news/state-attorney-general...
http://www.abcactionnews.com/content/news/local/story/McColl...
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_...
I am hearing rumblings
of a Article 5 Constitutional Convention. No joking. I'm trying to find a source.
Edit...
Source:
http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/otter-wants-to-amend-the-u...
I will bet a case of beer
I will bet a case of beer these lawsuits will be tossed out of court. Another smoke and mirror trick. The NWO has infiltrtaed the Gov, Lt Gov, AG, Dept of Justice etc...
We all know the Judges are bought and paid for.
There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan
"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr
I for one, could not be more
I for one, could not be more thrilled that this lawsuit is going to take place. Thank you, God! This is our one chance to finally make our voices heard. We finally have a chance to make Obama, Pelosi, and all the other liberals in Washington sit down, shut up, and listen closely to what we have to say. They have ignored us all throughout this whole "ObamaCare" mess, but we will not be ignored any longer. Maybe this will teach them a valuable lesson, as well. If they don't want another lawsuit on their hands in the future, they'd better listen to the American people when we say no to something that we know is unconstitutional. The liberals in Washington think they know us better than we know ourselves. How arrogant is that? I can't wait for this lawsuit to begin so we can show the liberals that we mean business!
Asserting our States Rights is the key.
The Constitution says that the States retain all the rights that are not specifically defined in the Constitution.
Let's start using them!
KL: Welcome to the DP.
I totally agree...
that this action is unconstitutional; however, there are so many more unconstitutional bills that have been passed through our corrupt congress with no action having been taken. Perhaps this issue will be the catalyst to finally make congress liable for their tyrannical behavior and disdain for the constitution for the united States. I think a lot of the support for suing the feds over this is because of the strong insurance lobby otherwise many AG's and others would not bother with this as they didn't bother with the other non constitutional issues. The misuse of the Commerce Act is the vehicle for passing all of these unconstitutional acts and should be abolished outright.....
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I have one word for you...predator drones. Oh, you think I'm kidding?" Obombya
unconstitutional
why would they wait until after it gets signed? seems it would be unconstitutional even before the signing,afterwards would be too late,3 polls agree that most didnt want in the first place,but still was rammed through as if we are too stupid and or ignorant to see how it really is,if they really wanted to fix this they could have removed their legislation put in place that caused this in the first place,
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee (1886) 118 U.S. 425
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it" 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd, Section 256
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p.491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
The Patriot Act? Is that Unconstitutional?
It definitely is not.
Yet, we could all disappear tomorrow because it has not been challenged as far as I know. It is currently the law of the land.
Once something is on the books, it generally stays.
Thank
you for sharing this. I hope updates are spread far and wide...
Big bump.
Berwick, Columbia County, Pennsylvania
Ron Paul 2012 - The People's Choice
rEVOLution SuperPAC: http://www.revolutionpac.com/
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2011-07-26...