Posted on 04/07/2010 10:21:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Five more U.S. states have now joined the attorneys general of a dozen other states in a lawsuit aimed at toppling the federal government’s new health care law.
The states assert that portions of the health care legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 23 amounts to constitutional overreach that infringes on the right of states and individuals to manage their own affairs.
"We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states," said Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in a statement.
“On behalf of the residents in Florida and the states joining our efforts, we are committed to aggressively pursuing this lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to prevent this unprecedented expansion of federal powers, impact upon state sovereignty, and encroachment on our freedom,” McCollum continued.
The attorneys general of Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington had already banded together with Florida to file a lawsuit against the federal government with the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
The lawsuit contends that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) infringes upon the constitutional rights of the residents of states by forcing all citizens and legal residents to carry qualified health insurance or pay a financial penalty.
The states contend that the insurance mandate exceeds the limited scope of the powers granted to the federal government under Article I of the US Constitution. Furthermore, they assert that the tax penalty for not carrying insurance violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.
The suit also contends that the PPACA infringes on the sovereignty of the states guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by forcing the states to abide by new operating rules and mandating that they spend billions of dollars to support the new health care system, when they already face severe budget crises.
Virginia has also filed its own separate lawsuit against the federal government, reiterating many of the concerns of its fellow states. Virginia has already passed a state law that expressly forbids the government from mandating that citizens carry health insurance or pay a penalty.
The addition of the five new states brings the total number of states involved in the Florida-led lawsuit against the federal government over ObamaCare to nineteen, including Virginia.
A hearing for scheduling the Florida-led suit is set to take place April 14, 2010 at 9 a.m. central time at the Federal Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida.
Voter fraud is only successful in the narrowest of election results. It simply is not possible to engineer sufficient illegal votes to overcome anything resembling strong opposition to the liberals.
Making it immeasurably harder for the likes of the union thugs and ACORN like organizations is the public has been made aware of them.
Hope there will be some changes in NC,too! I understand that some of the people presented a petition to Bev Perdue yesterday to join the lawsuit against obamacare. Haven’t heard anything about that, though!
Question...if SCOTUS says they can't require individuals and/or companies to purchase insurance, is there some way they could twist that into a defacto public option (or mandate)? /tinfoil hat
Any Democrats among these umpteen AG noisemakers?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Don’t forget the dead people.. they seem to be able to vote too.
A: Amnesty.
Heh, it's worse than that, it's like entering the monkey cage at the zoo. Get a picture that.
It might be amusing, but it is futile.
True enough and one can't be too careful when confronting fools; you know the old saw. The arm waving, spittle flying, name calling, irrational invective is their ONLY defense and to them it somehow makes sense. They are either unable or unwilling to see the irony, not to mention the danger in their foolishness. Sadly, many don't even care. For all that, it can't hurt to have folks engaging the enemy at the State level on our behalf be aware we are out here supporting them.
Louisiana at this point. The Dim AG was asked nicely by guvnah Bobby Jindal(R) to join the fray. He did, reluctantly I'm sure.
Yep, I think one of the first things Republicans need to do when they get back in power (or maybe this has to be done through constitutional amendment) is change the suffrage laws. As long as there is an income tax, only persons who paid into the system get to vote, or conversely, if someone took ANY federal monies for anything,(maybe except SS, I’m not sure) no vote. Something like that. Anyway, something where the people who are the producers get to vote, but not the consumers of tax dollars.
Thank you so much for sharing that graphic, I love it!
The visual aids that I get from FR often become the materials that I post around town in my attempt to be a modern day pamphleteer ;)
It is only one suit brought in Federal Court in Florida with 19 or 20 states participating as plaintiffs.
I assume (hope) they have done their homework and feel they will get a friendly court hearing in this District Court.
I would have preferred if 5 or 6 separate suits started in different District Courts throughout the country. It would only take one of these to get through the District and Court of Appeals to get to the USSC. Timing is important, and if Fla slows things down, no plan B (that I know of).
Even if ALL the States joined this action, they still wouldn't concede that they screwed up. A principle factor in even BEING on the far left to begin with is the ability to embrace your ideals IN SPITE OF Reality, not BECAUSE OF it.
I wrote along that line to a good friend of mine a week or two ago in email, and I repeat it here for your consumption.
IMO, “in spite of” must be the most succinct description of the gist of the leftist argument on every issue.
spite(n) - petty ill will: a malicious, usually small-minded desire to harm or humiliate
So, then:
“in spite of” – to act with petty, malicious ill will so as to impugn, humiliate, and evade accountability to known, applicable facts.
THAT, right there, describes with destructive accuracy, the true nature of every leftist argument I’ve ever known.
I should note, too, that I chose “evade” over “avoid” since it carries the implication of having illegitimately gotten out of something; as in “evading” v. “avoiding” taxation.
There's really nothing for Democrats (true leftists, actually) to "figure out"; their entire weltanschauung obviates the need, for it embraces the conclusion, first, then chooses to selectively accept or ignore facts only on the basis of whether they support the already-embraced conclusion.
This is why you will continue to see "OMG we're gonna die!" articles about "climate change" even though -- according to a recent Rasmussen poll -- 65% of America has pretty much blown off the whole global warming idea as either nonthreatening, or an outright scam.
As in that case, so in this one: the facts, and the numbers of people rallying to the facts, simply DO NOT MATTER to these people. They will continue to think what they already think even if the entire Earth rises in dissent.
Honestly, I think leftism is a deep-seated psychosis -- a state of selective denial founded upon the unhealthy fear-driven acceptance of certain ideas -- freedom from which very nearly requires Divine Intervention.
The fear of some scenario eventuating drives the embrace of an idea that, if true, would prevent that fearful scenario from coming to pass. That, in turn, drives adherence to facts that support the embraced idea; and ignorance, or active rejection -- often with vituperative -- of facts that oppose the embraced idea.
The obvious defect in this selective "cherry-picking" of facts is the more amplified by two elements: the irrational nature of the fear aroused by the dreaded scenario; the actual falsehood of the embraced idea.
Thus we see the liberal mind, time and time again, actively shouting down fact, because it conflicts with an idea that is false, but that -- if it were true -- would prevent the development of some improbable scenario about which they harbor irrational fear.
That mental landscape knows nothing of Reason.
In addition to some private suits, that may or may not merit "standing", the Commonwealth of Virginia has filed a separate suit. There was also talk they might in addition join the suit filed in Florida, but I haven't heard any more about that.
Great analysis. Leftists can be compared favorably to adolescents IMO. The adults(conservatives) in this unholy war against time honored values had better begin laying down the law, and soon.
Nicely worded.
yes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.