US files 1st response to health care law challenge

Associated Press ^ | May 12, 2010 | PETE YOST

[Free ThinkerNY]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration argues in its first court response to a challenge against the new health care law that Congress can require Americans to buy health insurance.

The argument by Justice Department lawyers comes in a lawsuit that a conservative group, the Thomas More Law Center, filed in federal court in Detroit on March 23, the same day President Barack Obama signed the new law.

[Mr. K]

The Interstate Commerce Clause has been the source of more bad law than anything else.

And it is only a ‘CLAUSE’ within a bigger piece of legislation, that seeks to prohibit exactly what the ‘CLAUSE’ has been used to do.

This is a perfect example of a legal loophole ‘clause’ within a document, that is used to thwart the document itself.

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[Mich Patriot]

"a court may not second-guess the factual record upon which Congress relied in writing the legislation, the Obama administration argued."

Factual record???

Is "second-guessing" a new legal term??? Sounds about as distinguished as Obozo, doesn't it?

[DrC]

“The Justice Department said that the law center’s challenge should not be allowed to go forward in the courts because the minimum coverage requirement inflicts no actual or imminent injury.”

Wow! Forcing people to spend up to thousands of dollars per family inflicts no injury? This explains why this administration is such an enthusiastic champion of cap and trade and all manner of nickel-and-dime levies (tanning tax, medical device tax, Medicare tax on investment income) that will ultimately borne by taxpayers. Apparently, American families can absorb whatever new financial burdens are imposed upon them without a shred of pain!

[Drill Thrawl]

This article is just full of reasons why the current federal government must be dismantled and a new one, true to the Constitution, should be created.

The Justice Department said that the law center's challenge should not be allowed to go forward in the courts because the minimum coverage requirement inflicts no actual or imminent injury.
Since when is being forced to pay a fee\fine not an injury?

In response, the Justice Department says the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce and that this broad grant of power is not limited to the direct regulation of interstate commerce.
The Constitution specifically calls for inter(amoung the)state(s) commerce. Article 1, Sect. 8. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..."

"a court may not second-guess the factual record upon which Congress relied" in writing the legislation, the Obama administration argued.
This is laughable! Everything about this bill has been proven to be a lie!

They must go! They must all go!

[Ken H]

Obama Administration:

"Congress also may regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce..."

______________________________________

Justice Scalia:

"...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

[rarestia]

So am I reading that to say that Scalia agrees with the Obama Justice Dept?

[grumpygresh]

“The Justice Department said that the law center’s challenge should not be allowed to go forward in the courts because the minimum coverage requirement inflicts no actual or imminent injury.”

This is just rich. With all of the ridiculous federal coverage mandates, you bet health insurance will be expensive. Most will be better off paying the fine and gaming the system. Insurance companies will be caught between premium caps, expensive coverage mandates, and people going in and out of the system. This is already happening in MA.

This is not going away. The Republicans need to grill that creepy troll SCOTUS nominee kagan on the health care mandates. They have to do this in such a way that dissects the augment into small component pieces so she can’t simply refuse to answer on this subject.

[MamaTexan]

In response, the Justice Department says the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce and that this broad grant of power is not limited to the direct regulation of interstate commerce.

Oh, Please! it's called the Rule of Exclusion. It's been around forever, and it's the very POINT of the powers being enumerated.....it makes everything else excluded.

§ 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story Rules of Constitutional Interpretation

-----

§ 1075 The constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers; and none of them can be rightfully exercised beyond the scope of the objects, specified in those powers. It is not disputed, that, when the power is given, all the appropriate means to carry it into effect are included. Neither is it disputed, that the laying of duties is, or may be an appropriate means of regulating commerce. But the question is a very different one, whether, under pretence of an exercise of the power to regulate commerce, congress may in fact impose duties for objects wholly distinct from commerce. The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

-----

Why doesn't this administration stop acting like they EVEN care!

Acorrding to them, they HAVE no 'limits'.

[Logical me]

King Obama communists empire will overthrow this law suit. You can bet on that. Power, corruption, criminal empire, greed, and insanity is in control of America.

[Drill Thrawl]

Why doesn't this administration stop acting like they EVEN care! Acorrding to them, they HAVE no 'limits'.

Exactly. As Kagan would tell us, limits may be placed on things that "may" cause harm. But since EVERYTHING 0 does is good, he is therefore exempt.

[Ken H]

They seem to agree on the New Deal Commerce Clause. I can't say that Scalia would necessarily uphold all provisions of Obamacare - the devil is in the details and all that.

At least one legal big wig thinks so, however. Charles Fried, US Solicitor General 1985-1989 and Harvard Law professor said on Greta Van Susteren's show 04/14/2010:

FRIED: The statute which I have front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce.

The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has affect on interstate commerce.

Well, if that has affect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.

-snip-

FRIED: I daresay that, because I looked at that 2005 lawsuit about the pot in California. If somebody growing pot in their basement is interstate commerce and Scalia said so, I don't know where you are going to get five votes the other way.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,591103,00.html

[BunnySlippers]

bUMP

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks AAC! The odinga administration response could just as easily have been, "Because we said so" and wouldn't have changed the context enough to make any real difference. This is so laughable it could be they had the folks at Comedy Central prepare this eloquent response??? These people are true believers and practitioners of "The Big Lie"! If this is all they've got, I think we can look forward to favorable rulings from the SCOTUS. Sooner rather than later would be my hope.

Awaiting odinga's rejoinder to the suit(s) brought by The States. Maybe they plan to bring out the big guns then, that is, if they have any.