Hearing Date set for the Obamacare Class Action

Email | Oct. 20, 2010 | Van Irion

[ForGod'sSake]

Good news! A Federal court has ruled that most Americans have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of Obamacare. The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently ruled that Americans who “reorganize their affairs,” and “forego certain spending today, so they will have the funds to pay for health insurance when the individual mandate takes effect in 2014,” have standing. This is most Americans.

The Obama administration filed a notice in our lawsuit last week acknowledging the Michigan court’s ruling and its relevance to our case. However, their notice reemphasized their assertion that Congress has authority to enact Obamacare.

Today we filed a response to that notice. Our response demonstrates, once again, that our lawsuit against Obamacare is unique. Rather than arguing that current precedent limits Congressional authority, we used this opportunity to reiterate and emphasize the argument that we have been making since the beginning: Current precedent leaves zero limitations on Congressional authority, and that violates the clear meaning of the Constitution. Obamacare is simply the latest in a long line of Federal legislation that increasingly intrudes upon personal rights. If the courts don’t overturn the flawed precedent currently in place, Obamacare will not be the end of these intrusions. That is why all Americans that want to reign in Congress should be part of this class action. Send out this link for others to JOIN THE OCA.

Ours is the only lawsuit against Obamacare that is making this point in this way. Ours is the only lawsuit that explicitly acknowledges that Congress currently has no limits on its authority, and argues that this must change. Ours is the only case that begins and ends with our assertion that specific precedent must be overturned.

Now that the “standing” issue has been effectively eliminated, the court is left with one simple question: Will it follow the clear meaning of the Constitution, or will it follow clearly erroneous precedent? Our latest filing presented this question very clearly.

The defendants’ most recent filing and our response can be viewed at our website. The ruling from the Michigan court can also be reviewed from our web site.

Our first appearance in court for the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit has been scheduled. The Eastern District of Tennessee noticed all parties that a scheduling conference has been set for November 19th in Chattanooga, Tennessee. While a scheduling conference is usually routine, this one will likely become a discussion of the pending motions. The judge from the Eastern District of Tennessee now has all the briefs related to our motion for preliminary injunction and to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. If a separate hearing date is not set before the November 19th scheduling conference, we’d like to encourage everyone that can be present for the scheduling conference to be there. We will update you further as that date approaches.

We are excited that a Federal judge now has the opportunity to make history. It only takes one brave judge to re-establish our Constitutional Republic by overturning Wickard v. Filburn.

If we are able to tell the judge that we now have over 100,000 plaintiffs it would have a much stronger effect on his decision. Please continue to tell everyone you know about the OCA. Please forward this e-mail to everyone on your e-mail lists. Please encourage them all to join the OCA. You can them this link - JOIN THE OCA.

Van Irion
President, Lead Counsel, Co-Founder

Liberty Legal Foundation

P.S. Liberty Legal Foundation is a non-profit organization. We appreciate all contributions. Please give what you can to help support our work to re-establish our Constitutional Republic.

 

[ForGod'sSake]

Pretty much self explanatory. Links all seem to work...

[ForGod'sSake]

I’ve been negligent in following up on this but ~ping~ for an update.

[OrioleFan]

I have a questyion. What does it mean to have standing? It seems like the primary defense employed by Obama lawyers is that Americans or States don’t have standing.

[ForGod'sSake]

What does it mean to have standing?

I'm not a lawyer and don't play one of teevee either but I'll give you my understanding of it, FWIW: That the party, or parties in this case bringing an action can show they have been affected in some way, usually harmful to them, by another's inappropriate or illegal action(s). Maybe some legal eagles will check in on the thread to clear up my layman's understanding.

[preamble]

standing is the first hurdle you need to pass for the lawsuit to proceed
against a law.
I’m not a lawyer but I took Public Policy and Law class.

Now individual taxpayers do not have standing to sue to stop
Defense department spending for instance.

If i remember, you have to show imminent damage— that’s why
Ken Cuccinelli’s lawsuit passed that test , VA passed a law concerning
health insurance freedom. So he is representing the State of VA as
a plaintiff. the STATE will be hurt.

There’s another 20 state lawsuit headed by FL attorney general Bill McCollum.
They are saying that the Medicaid is an unfunded mandate on the states
and that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Then there’s other lawsuits with other parties.

[preamble]

standing is the first hurdle you need to pass for the lawsuit to proceed
against a law.
I’m not a lawyer but I took Public Policy and Law class.

Now individual taxpayers do not have standing to sue to stop
Defense department spending for instance.

If i remember, you have to show imminent damage— that’s why
Ken Cuccinelli’s lawsuit passed that test , VA passed a law concerning
health insurance freedom. So he is representing the State of VA as
a plaintiff. the STATE will be hurt.

There’s another 20 state lawsuit headed by FL attorney general Bill McCollum.
They are saying that the Medicaid is an unfunded mandate on the states
and that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Then there’s other lawsuits with other parties.

[bill1952]

If you sue your daughter for unpaid car payments while you are the cosigner, then your neighbor cannot join in the action.
He has no standing.

[ForGod'sSake]

One from THE WEB that's fairly straightforward.

Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. State laws define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

At the Federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy). Only those with enough direct stake in an action or law have "standing" to challenge it. A decision that a party does not have sufficient stake to sue will commonly be put in terms of the party's lacking "standing". For Supreme Court decisions focusing on the "standing" issue, see, e.g., County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The right to file a lawsuit or make a particular legal claim. Only a person or entity that has suffered actual injury has standing to seek redress in court. For example, an advocacy group may not file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a statute on its own; there must be a plaintiff who has actually been harmed by the statute.

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

[Clump]

Standing is what allows a plaintiff to bring suit. It’s a legal principle that has to do with the article 3 case and controversey requirement.

[Clump]

Oh yea, in case anyone is curious. . . the supreme court has created some exceptions. For instance, nearly anyone can bring suit to enforce environmental laws even if the harm is general to the public.

[fightinJAG]

Is the case being heard in Michigan or Tennessee? It’s not clear from this.

[ForGod'sSake]

Is the case being heard in Michigan or Tennessee?

Tennessee. I'm not sure why Van Irion referenced the Michigan case that was smacked down by an idiot bent willie appointee. I don't recall the particulars on the Michigan case except that it was brought by the Thomas More Law Center. A pretty sharp group of legal eagles; conservative of course.

More on THAT SUIT.

[ForGod'sSake]

For instance, nearly anyone can bring suit to enforce environmental laws even if the harm is general to the public.

Excellent observation! In fact, there may be no harm at all; except to speckled birds, funny looking rats or farting darters and other trash fish. Is the world upside down yet???

[nomad]

Alright!I`m in on that baby. Now thats the people speaking. Hey Obarky, can you hear us now?

[ForGod'sSake]

Alright!I`m in on that baby.

Cool! At one time there were well over 30,000 signed on. Once they started culling through the false names and asking everyone if they were sure wanted to remain in the class for the actual filing they lost several thousand. Still in all, not bad.

[EdReform]

Thanks for the ping! I’ve been out of the loop for a few weeks, myself.

[Eye of Unk]

We will vote wisely and strongly for those that will speak for us in repealing Obamacare. A much better healthcare plan can be evolved, this one has all the mandates of creating confusion, concern, protests and financial grief, in effect its goal is to divide America and make it weaker.

[EdReform]

Ping lists ping!

[ForGod'sSake]

...in effect its goal is to divide America and make it weaker.

So it would seem. I believe this November will be a tipping point. We either begin to work our way back to a feral government with limited and enumerated powers or we fall into the abyss. Probably never to recover. I thing it's that important.

[EdReform]

BTTT