Lawsuit to feds: Constitution says, 'No you can't'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 01, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[Man50D]

The newest legal brief in a court challenge to Obamacare, the president's nationalization of health care across the U.S., says the Constitution simply doesn't allow the federal government to demand a payment for not doing something.

The case was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of several individuals.

It challenges the government's plan to force individuals to buy health-care insurance and pay for abortions, among other issues, or be penalized. It was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and seeks an injunction to halt the plan.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

In a brief in support of their request for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs argue that there's not even any dispute.

"This case is about the fundamental relationship between the power of the federal government, which is limited by the Constitution, and the liberty interests of those it governs," said the brief, filed just days ago. "Defendants' explanation of the national health care problems this country is facing and the efforts by the federal government to provide solutions to them through the Health Care Reform is, at the end of the day, beside the point.

"No matter how convinced defendants may be that the challenged Health Care Reform Act is in the public interest, their political objectives can only be accomplished in according with the Constitution."

[hinckley buzzard]

This same lawsuit could be filed, Mutatis mutandis, regarding most of the entire Congressional output for the last session.

[Buddy B]

BUMP.....

[Bad~Rodeo]

Good News and Good Post, thanks

[green pastures]

“Teeny-tiny ray of hope” ping...

[tacticalogic]

Overturn Wickard v Filburn!

[perfect_rovian_storm]

From your fingers to God’s ears. That would be the happiest day this country has seen in many a decade.

[upchuck]

"Defendants' explanation of the national health care problems this country is facing and the efforts by the federal government to provide solutions to them through the Health Care Reform is, at the end of the day, beside the point.

Gee, even court briefs are hackneyed.

[freedumb2003]

>>says the Constitution simply doesn’t allow the federal government to demand a payment for not doing something. <<

Sure it does. It is called “taxation.”

[Danae]

These are exactly the sort of challenges that I wanted to see brought for exactly the reasons I believe they SHOULD be brought.

There is HOPE in this! If it fails, we will know that the government is lost. Either we change it, or we are slaves. This case is a huge one.

[piytar]

Not going to happen (case being overturned). However, a good set of lawyers could “distinguish” the case out of existence...

[OneWingedShark]

>>>says the Constitution simply doesn’t allow the federal government to demand a payment for not doing something. <<
>
>Sure it does. It is called “taxation.”

Well, technically, there are things they are *supposed* to do like... oh, prevent invasions. {And our “illegal immigrant” problem DOES qualify as an invasion...}

[tacticalogic]

Not going to happen (case being overturned). However, a good set of lawyers could “distinguish” the case out of existence...

I'm not familiar with the process of eradication by distiction. How does that work?

[Oceander]

I'm not familiar with the process of eradication by distiction. How does that work?

Quite simple: a decided case is only binding precedent on a subsequent case to the extent that the facts in the two cases are analogous - a case concerning oranges only binds subsequent cases regarding oranges, not cases regarding apples - so one simply finds factual differences that one can relate to the holding of the prior case - it is the holding only that is binding, not the dicta, no matter how colorful - and if successful, the prior case is "distinguished" from the case at hand and is, therefore, not binding precedent.

[tacticalogic]

In the case of Wickard, it appears that horse left the barn long ago. It’s the basis of federal claims of authority over anything Congress can “find” to have “a substantial effect on interstate commerce”.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Lawsuit to feds: Constitution says, 'No you can't'...Feds to Lawsuit: Constitution - what's that?......

[rangerwife]

Here’s a link to their TMLC’s reply brief:

http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/ReplyBrieftoGovernmentsDefenseofObamacare—Fi.pdf

[Rome2000]

An “ebonics” Professor could have done a better job.

[piytar]

Simple. The Court spouts a lot of “stare decisis” (precedent is important) dicta, says they are not overruling the previous case(s), explain why the current case is different, and then rules opposite of precedent. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the “exceptions” cover almost everything but the specific facts of the precedential case (which still has not been “overruled”).

Voila, nothing “overruled,” but the law as espoused by the Court has changed 180 degress.

Happens all the time to varying degrees.

[goat granny]

The income tax took a constitutional amendment #16 to be legal....any one that suggests fair tax or vat tax or any other tax has to be predicated on repeal of the 16th amendment or we will have both fair and income tax...and should be voted down........