Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Monday, August 2, 2010

Virginia Passes One Hurdle Re: Health Care

A Federal judge gave the state of Virginia a small victory in its battle with the U.S. government.

The state of Virginia can continue its lawsuit to stop the nation's new health care law from taking effect, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said he is allowing the suit against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it's constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product.

"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision.

This is a long way from over. I won't predict the outcome but can someone explain why the Federal government is taking on so many of its states. It's absolutely amazing how many lawsuits that pit the Federal government of Barack Obama are currently ongoing in which the adversary is an individual state. Here's the statement from the White House.

Since the enactment of health reform legislation in March, several state Attorneys General have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government. This is nothing new. We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act – constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all of those challenges failed. So too will the challenge to health reform.


Couldn't you turn that statement around on the White House re: the Arizona immigration law?

3 comments:

AG said...

Well that's federalism for you. State-local, federal-state, and even state-state conflicts happen all the time. I don't think its fair to imply Obama is being unusually antagonistic towards the states any more than it would be fair to claim that red states are trying to judicially overthrow Obama.

mike volpe said...

True, though this is highly publicized on issues that the public is engaged on.

xformed said...

AG;

What other administration required all citizens to pay for a product? I believe that requirement is unnecarisly antogonistic twords the people, particularly when it was not passed through the Congress in the way normal bills are passed, and not even fully written when signed.

That is dereliction of the duty. It certainly ran around the flanks of the citizens, when it was seen as not having a strong chance of passing when it was treated like the bulk of the law making before this, particularly for legislation that spanned over 2300 pages of text and that wasn't even available until the day before (that time line from my recollection), and certainly not in time to have posted on the web for comment before signing, AS PROMISED.

So, who's poking sticks in the eyes of who?

If it's a measure worthy of the Country, then handle it as such and take your lumps if the vote is against you. The President's numbers for approval have been waning, steadily. If they are not for him, they must be against him, wouldn't you say?