States fighting healthcare law don't have precedent on their side

[^_^ 5,021]

Lawsuits from 14 states challenging the constitutionality of the new national healthcare law face an uphill battle, largely due to a far-reaching Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California.

At issue in that case -- just like in the upcoming challenges to the healthcare overhaul -- was the reach of the federal government's power.

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.

They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority "to regulate commerce."

Even "noneconomic local activity" can come under federal regulation if it is "a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce," Scalia wrote.

The decision throws up a significant hurdle for the lawsuit filed last week in federal court by 13 state attorneys -- all but one a Republican. The Virginia attorney general filed a similar, but separate suit.

The suits claim that the federal government has no right to force individuals to have health insurance -- a central provision of the new healthcare law.

"By imposing such a mandate, the act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution," according to the suit from the 13 states.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia's opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

In the healthcare legislation, signed by the president Tuesday, Congress required virtually all Americans to have health insurance beginning in 2014. Those who fail to do so could be assessed a tax penalty of up to $750 per year.

Legislators argued that the "individual mandate" was necessary because it would undercut the insurance market if individuals could just opt out of having health insurance. Freeloaders could wait until they were hurt in an accident or contracted a disease and then demand insurance coverage for their "preexisting condition."

The court's ruling in the 2005 case, Gonzales vs. Raich, "is an enormous problem" for those who contend that the healthcare mandate is unconstitutional, said Simon Lazarus, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based National Senior Citizens Law Center.

"It clearly says Congress has vast regulatory authority over interstate commerce," he said.

David B. Rivkin, a Washington lawyer who is representing the 13 states, said the legal challenge rests on the principle that the federal government has limited powers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/27/nation/la-na-constitutionality27-2010mar27

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

March 27, 2010

Old news. Now twenty states have signed on to the lawsuit.

[^_^ 5,021]

March 27, 2010

Old news. Now twenty states have signed on to the lawsuit.

It's a reference to 2005 SCOTUS precedent. Old news?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.

They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority "to regulate commerce."

Even "noneconomic local activity" can come under federal regulation if it is "a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce," Scalia wrote.

That right there, seals the deal.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's a reference to 2005 SCOTUS precedent. Old news?

One lawyer's opinion is as good as another:

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said a ruling that his lawsuit against the federal health care overhaul can be brought to trial is a “first step” toward “upholding state sovereignty.”

McCollum, along with attorneys general in 19 other states, filed the lawsuit, saying the mandate that people buy health insurance or face a fine is unconstitutional.

A federal judge in Pensacola said Thursday that parts of that challenge should be heard.

McCollum’s team called the court ruling a big win, saying they are prepared to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This lawsuit is about the reach of the federal government, that it has gone beyond our Constitution, beyond our notion of limited government, with the individual mandate, getting into people’s lives, telling them what they have to go do,” said Joe Jacquot, Florida’s deputy attorney general.

[^_^ 5,021]

One lawyer's opinion is as good as another:

Lawyer? Scalia did not set that precedent in his capacity as a lawyer.

Edited October 15, 2010 by \

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That right there, seals the deal.

The case is not being argued under the commerce clause, but rather on tenth amendment grounds.

Lawyer? Scalia did not set that precedent in his capacity as a lawyer.

Your LA Times lawyer is the one I was referring to.

Edited October 15, 2010 by ##########

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The mandate will stand up if it eventually goes to the Supreme Court. It's not that different from Federal taxes. People must pay for health coverage given that everyone needs healthcare.

Your LA Times lawyer is the one I was referring to.

You think it's a big leap to translate what Scalia said about regulating marijuana to regulating health coverage?

Edited October 15, 2010 by El Buscador

[^_^ 5,021]

The case is not being argued under the commerce clause, but rather on tenth amendment grounds.

Really? You should tell Judge Vinson that. His words, and note he brings up the Commerce Clause. Are you sure this case isn't being argued under the commerce clause?

[The] case law is instructive, but ultimately inconclusive because the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have never been applied in such a manner before.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The mandate will stand up if it eventually goes to the Supreme Court. It's not that different from Federal taxes. People must pay for health coverage given that everyone needs healthcare.

You think it's a big leap to translate what Scalia said about regulating marijuana to regulating health coverage?

The issue is whether or not the Federal Government can mandate that the States fund the programs created and modified under Obamacare. That is different that a purely marketplace argument. A lot will depend on the mood of the country when the case finally makes it to SCOTUS, not that they are supposed to listen to public sentiment. If it was heard today, I think that the justices would find a way to limit the reach of the Federal Government in part.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Really? You should tell Judge Vinson that. His words, and note he brings up the Commerce Clause. Are you sure this case isn't being argued under the commerce clause?

[The] case law is instructive, but ultimately inconclusive because the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have never been applied in such a manner before.

I was listening to Bill McCollum's arguments earlier.

[^_^ 5,021]

I was listening to Bill McCollum's arguments earlier.

I don't doubt that you were. I believe you are stating what you heard accurately. The only conclusion here is that the case is being fought on both the 10th and the Commerce Clause. After all, I doubt the Judge would refer to the clause if it wasn't part of the case.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The issue is whether or not the Federal Government can mandate that the States fund the programs created and modified under Obamacare. That is different that a purely marketplace argument. A lot will depend on the mood of the country when the case finally makes it to SCOTUS, not that they are supposed to listen to public sentiment. If it was heard today, I think that the justices would find a way to limit the reach of the Federal Government in part.

Suppose that SCOTUS throws out the idea that Fed can require states to fund health coverage (which is doubtful), that still doesn't make the insurance mandate null and void. The mandate is focused on the individual with regard to their own health coverage. As to who picks up the tab on subsidies is negotiable in terms of it not effecting the Affordable Healthcare Act itself. The Fed could cut state funding or levy a tax on states that don't comply.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't doubt that you were. I believe you are stating what you heard accurately. The only conclusion here is that the case is being fought on both the 10th and the Commerce Clause. After all, I doubt the Judge would refer to the clause if it wasn't part of the case.

I think McCollum would hang his hat on any argument that sticks to the wall.

[Pooky 3,825]

Suppose that SCOTUS throws out the idea that Fed can require states to fund health coverage (which is doubtful), that still doesn't make the insurance mandate null and void. The mandate is focused on the individual with regard to their own health coverage. As to who picks up the tab on subsidies is negotiable in terms of it not effecting the Affordable Healthcare Act itself. The Fed could cut state funding or levy a tax on states that don't comply.

The mandate should be rendered null and void, because it requires purchasing a product from private companies, thus effectively guaranteeing their shareholders a profit from government legislation. I have a distinct problem with that aspect.

The only way to validate such a mandate is through a single payer system, but we don't have that (and likely will never get there). Having this administration basically guarantee that private companies, by dint of their lobbying power, make a profit from private citizens under penalty, is wrong. More than that, it is open to serious abuse, especially since insurance premiums are being hiked out of all proportion to inflation, in the absence of the price controls that never made it into the final Bill.