At least a dozen states are prepared to sue over the individual mandate in the health care overhaul package passed by the House on Sunday.
The attorneys-general of Virginia, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington all have announced their intent to file legal challenges as soon as the president signs the $1 trillion package that changes the way insurance companies do business.
President Obama plans to sign the bill on Tuesday, flanked by Democrats and other health care allies.
The Obama administration is not concerned about the pending cases, said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. He said the administration's defense will be based on the regulation of interstate commerce.
"A lot of big pieces of legislation are challenged in some ways," Gibbs said Monday, adding that he believes some of the challenges will be on legal grounds "that I don't think will be very successful."
"Some of the states and some of the players are curious. But there is a pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this," Gibbs said.
As of last week, the White House said it had not assembled a legal team to defend against the lawsuits. On Monday, however, Gibbs told reporters, "My advice from counsel is that we'll win."
The Virginia Legislature already has passed a law that would exempt state residents from the federal mandate.
"The health care reform bill, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia," Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said. "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."
Cuccinelli believes the federal government will argue that its authority derives from 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," Cuccinelli continued. "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."
Under the mandate in the bill approved by the House on Sunday, the federal government will require all legal U.S. residents to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. The law also requires all employers to provide health insurance to their employees
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said, "To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation."
Last week, attorneys-general in South Carolina and Florida said they intended to sue over the individual mandate if the health care bill is signed. (See earlier story)
The Commerce Clause would give the federal government authority to impose the mandate, said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform.
"The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does say that people need to meet certain requirements," DeParle said Monday in the White House press briefing room. "The requirement to have coverage is one of them. So, we're not concerned about that."
But two non-partisan government research offices said the constitutionality of the mandate is murky.
A July 24, 2009 report by the Congressional Research Service says, "Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service."
An August 1994 report by the Congressional Budget Office, issued when the Clinton administration was pursuing a health care overhaul, determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Brunning said the current health care legislation blatantly violates the Constitution.
"It tramples on individual liberty and dumps on the states the burden of an unfunded mandate that taxpayers cannot afford," Brunning said. "If the president signs this constitutionally flawed legislation, we will join with other state attorneys-general to protect the liberty of our citizens and sovereignty of state governments."
Even before it can be decided in the courts, Republicans in Congress hope to repeal the law.
"Today the work begins to repeal Obamacare and restore the principles of liberty that made America a great nation," Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), announcing he will introduce repeal legislation.
"The American people must take their country back by methodically eliminating every vestige of creeping socialism, including socialized medicine. The Pelosi Democrats will pay a price for their overreach. This fight is far from over."
Contact: Fred Lucas
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 23, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
