Virginia’s attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.
The following is the statement from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli:
“The Office of the Attorney General of Virginia will move forward with our lawsuit against the federal government and its unconstitutional overreach of its authority with the passage of the federal health care bill. We will file our complaint with the court as soon as the president signs it into law.
“With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce. We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.
“Virginia is in a unique situation that allows it the standing to file such a suit since Virginia is the only state so far to pass a law protecting its citizens from a government-imposed mandate to buy health insurance. The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia. Normally, such conflicts are decided in favor of the federal government, but because we believe the federal law is unconstitutional, Virginia’s law should prevail.
“Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do. There has never been a point in our history where the federal government has been given the authority to require citizens to buy goods or services.
“While we believe the health care reform bill the House just voted on suffers from constitutional problems, we do want to thank Speaker Pelosi for not trying to enact the bill through the questionable “deem and pass” procedure. By requiring an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill, she is living up to the letter of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. As someone who is sworn to protect the Constitution, she did the right thing in that regard.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in other cases that Congress cannot regulate non-commercial activities. In United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court struck down attempts to regulate non-commercial activities based upon their predicted effects on interstate commerce because those attempts went beyond the outer limits of the Commerce Clause.
The suit will be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division.
(Poloma Gefen – YWN)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
20 Responses
Excellent; Virginia has courage.
And they have great gun laws…right, Leah???
36 other States said they would do the same. Let’s see if they follow suit (pun intended.)
you could easily characterize the requirement to buy an acceptable insurance policy as a tax (and then ask whether Congress can raise a head tax), for which everyone is granted a tax credit equal to the amount of the tax if they buy an approved insurance policy
this leave open the question of the constitutionality of a federal head tax (better known historically as a poll tax)
and that leaves open the logic (or lack thereof) of a “fine” (for not buying insurance) that is much less than the cost of the insurance, however there is clearly no constitutional requirement that laws be logical
wow! chazak u’baruch!!!
nice 2 hear that i’m not the only one against this bill and the way it was passed.
thank you Virginia!
How about to force people to buy car insurance?Car only piece of metal and You can’t drive without insurance, kal-v-chomer, human body?
“How about to force people to buy car insurance?Car only piece of metal and You can’t drive without insurance, kal-v-chomer, human body?”
Huh? There is no federal law requiring car insurance.
#5 thats not a kal-v-chomer the car ins. is only liability to make sure you pay someone else in a accident you dont have to get collision same with health its my own business how itake care of myself
to # 6: chasve sholom if somebody get serious sick, it also liability who and how to pay for this.
#5 – if you dont buy a car, you dont need insurance – this law requires that you buy something simply because you live in this country
to #8, that’s exactly kal-v-chomer, how come something than you can easy avoid you must pay insurance, and for your health you don’t?
5, I am not sure where you are coming from but there is a MAJOR difference between health & auto insurance.
The federal govt doesn’t mandate auto insurance but in ripping the Constitution to shreds, they do mandate health insurance.
It is the states that mandate auto insurance but you have a choice. If you don’t want to pay for auto insurance, you cannot own a car. Why, simply because your actions MAY cause damage to others’ property. There is a choice of not owning a car. You don’t have a choice of breathing & staying healthy but you DON’T HAVE TO OWN A CAR.
7,
How about YOU the patient take responsibility for YOURSELF & pay for it YOURSELF? Why does someone else have to pay for your sickness? If you gambled by not having health insurance & you get sick, why should I have to pay for your bad gamble? Take some personal responsibility for yourself finally & take care of your own debts.
Virginia started requiring people to buy car insurance within the past two decades.
If this lawsuit succeeds, it will mean a single payer government system will have to be established, because the mandate is the only thing that will keep the insurers from going bankrupt. We will never go back to allowing discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions!
if you can easily avoid something, then you have a choice – buy the car and pay or dont buy it and dont pay
but here the government requires you to pay- you have no choice but to pay
even though the human body is more valuable, the difference is in the choice to not pay if you dont want to
apparently marklevin made my point more eloquently
TO MARK:I understand your points,but let say You couldn’t pay for yourself,who going to pay?I against to mandatory from government(In fact: I grow up in Communist Russia). But some time they are necessary, may be not like was done by Obama & Co., But Bush also done nothing, to do something about it.
Mark,
If you have employer-based insurance and your employer cancels the policy, goes out of business, or if you lose your job, currently you can’t get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. Do you really think that working for an employer who goes broke is a ‘bad gamble’ that should prevent people from EVER getting health insurance again?
Charliehall,
Most insurance companies have a “point system” the more points one has the more they pay. Basically because if they have more points it means they are more dangerous.
Can you explain the difference between that and pre-existing conditions?
charliehall what am I supposed to when I can barely pay my rent and the cost of government mandated insurance will force me out onto the street, where I am guaranteed to get sick or suffer from some kind of medical emergency (such as a violent encounter with some street gang, or other thugs)?
hereorthere,
If you are that poor, you probably already qualify for Medicaid — and as a result of the healthcare reform bill it will be easier to qualify. I don’t know where you live, but NY Medicaid is great insurance.
Ben Levi,
Right now, nobody can get insurance at all for pre-existing conditions from any company except through an employer group policy or a government plan. There is a big difference between that and simply paying a higher premium.