prev
next
13 AGs Sue Government over Health Overhaul
Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.
The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the 10-year, $938 billion bill the House passed Sunday night.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit says.
Special Report: Health Care Reform
Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is taking the lead and is joined by attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana. All are Republicans except James "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat.
GOP Looks to Courts, Polls to Repeal Health Care Bill
Some states are considering separate lawsuits — Virginia filed its own Tuesday — and still others may join the multistate suit. In Michigan, the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, a Christian legal advocacy group, sued on behalf of itself and four people it says don't have private health insurance and object to being told they have to purchase it.
McCollum, who is running for governor, argues the bill will cause "substantial harm and financial burden" to the states.
The lawsuit claims the bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs.
"No public policy goal — no matter how important or well-intentioned — can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by our Constitution," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement.
The lawsuit also says the states can't afford the new law. Using Florida as an example, the lawsuit says the overhaul will add almost 1.3 million people to the state's Medicaid rolls and cost the state an additional $150 million in 2014, growing to $1 billion a year by 2019.
"We simply cannot afford to do the things in this bill that we're mandated to do," McCollum said at a press conference after filing the suit. He said the Medicaid expansion in Florida will cost $1.6 billion.
"That's not possible or practical to do in our state," he said. "It's not realistic, it's not right, and it's very, very wrong."
South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is also running for governor, said the lawsuit was necessary to protect his state's sovereignty.
"A legal challenge by the states appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government," he said.
But Lawrence Friedman, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the New England School of Law in Boston, said before the suit was filed that it has little chance of success. He said he can't imagine a scenario where a judge would stop implementation of the health care bill.
Still, McCollum said he expects the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually decide if the overhaul is constitutional.
"This is not lawful," he said. "It may have passed Congress, but there are three branches of government."
Some states are looking at other ways to avoid participating. Virginia and Idaho have passed legislation aimed at blocking requirements in the bill, and the Republican-led Legislature in Florida is trying to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ask voters to exempt the state from the federal law's requirements. At least 60 percent of voters would have to approve.
Under the bill, starting in six months, health insurance companies would be required to keep young adults as beneficiaries on their parents' plans until they turn 26, and companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to sick children.
Other changes would not kick in until 2014.
That's when most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — either through an employer or government program or by buying it themselves. Those who refuse will face tax penalties.
"This is the first time in American history where American citizens will be forced to buy a particular good or service," said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is also president of the National Association of Attorneys General, explaining why his state joined the lawsuit.
Tax credits to help pay for premiums also will start flowing to middle-class working families with incomes up to $88,000 a year, and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income people.
No Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate voted for the bill.
© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the 10-year, $938 billion bill the House passed Sunday night.
"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit says.
Special Report: Health Care Reform
Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is taking the lead and is joined by attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana. All are Republicans except James "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat.
GOP Looks to Courts, Polls to Repeal Health Care Bill
Some states are considering separate lawsuits — Virginia filed its own Tuesday — and still others may join the multistate suit. In Michigan, the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, a Christian legal advocacy group, sued on behalf of itself and four people it says don't have private health insurance and object to being told they have to purchase it.
McCollum, who is running for governor, argues the bill will cause "substantial harm and financial burden" to the states.
The lawsuit claims the bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs.
"No public policy goal — no matter how important or well-intentioned — can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by our Constitution," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement.
The lawsuit also says the states can't afford the new law. Using Florida as an example, the lawsuit says the overhaul will add almost 1.3 million people to the state's Medicaid rolls and cost the state an additional $150 million in 2014, growing to $1 billion a year by 2019.
"We simply cannot afford to do the things in this bill that we're mandated to do," McCollum said at a press conference after filing the suit. He said the Medicaid expansion in Florida will cost $1.6 billion.
"That's not possible or practical to do in our state," he said. "It's not realistic, it's not right, and it's very, very wrong."
South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is also running for governor, said the lawsuit was necessary to protect his state's sovereignty.
"A legal challenge by the states appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government," he said.
But Lawrence Friedman, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the New England School of Law in Boston, said before the suit was filed that it has little chance of success. He said he can't imagine a scenario where a judge would stop implementation of the health care bill.
Still, McCollum said he expects the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually decide if the overhaul is constitutional.
"This is not lawful," he said. "It may have passed Congress, but there are three branches of government."
Some states are looking at other ways to avoid participating. Virginia and Idaho have passed legislation aimed at blocking requirements in the bill, and the Republican-led Legislature in Florida is trying to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ask voters to exempt the state from the federal law's requirements. At least 60 percent of voters would have to approve.
Under the bill, starting in six months, health insurance companies would be required to keep young adults as beneficiaries on their parents' plans until they turn 26, and companies would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to sick children.
Other changes would not kick in until 2014.
That's when most Americans will for the first time be required to carry health insurance — either through an employer or government program or by buying it themselves. Those who refuse will face tax penalties.
"This is the first time in American history where American citizens will be forced to buy a particular good or service," said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is also president of the National Association of Attorneys General, explaining why his state joined the lawsuit.
Tax credits to help pay for premiums also will start flowing to middle-class working families with incomes up to $88,000 a year, and Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income people.
No Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate voted for the bill.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 201 Comments
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
Hey Queen Nancy - Isn't Karma a b....
That is untrue. Purchase of car insurance is mandatory in most states, for minimum coverage. Maybe in Nebraska they don't have this.
Brought to you by the GOP ...
Yeah, Franken the Failure (failed comic, failed author, etc) has really made his home state proud... The only way he won was with the help of the Democrats closest friend..... ACORN.....
This shows the extent to which this bill is a failure. It is met with lawsuits."
No, it ONLY shows how the party of NO is yet again, NO- they are against halth insurance reform, YES, they want to keep the currect failed system whereby if you get cancer or your kid has leukemia and you dont have the money or insurance you need to sell your house and have friends and neighbors take up a collection, hold bake sales and put those cute little jars out in stores with your pity story begging for patrons to drop in a few dimes and quarters to help you pay some of your bills, yup that system works great doenst it!
Not funny how may of those little jars I see around on store counters with pictures of some cancer victim or car wreck survivor who needs $50,000 minimum and they don't even have ajob or something.
Funny how we manage to rubber stamp 2 BUSH regime wars for billions and billions we didnt need, and how we can ship millions off to Haiti and other third world coutnries, but when it comes to OUR people, we get the neighbor's bake sales and glass jar treatment.
Take the idea out further and hypothsize that in order to promote 'general welfare' it is decided that every adult is required to purchase an American made car (after all it would benefit the automakers, suppliers, employees, home builders, banks, finance companies etc.).
It might be a better idea to call it a federal special tax that you are subject to under certain conditions, such as you currently do not carry health insurance, rather than purchasing a health insurance plan.
Washington's requiring you to purchase a product, in this case an insurance policy, is a principle that has never stood before in the courts because it is a very slippery slope. "
Shoulda thought of that argument years ago, you are REQUIRED to buy car insurance as well as pay taxes and also pay a parking meter to park your car even though you already pay for the roads and its renting public property back to you.
The argument that you dont have to drive was true 50 years ago, today a car is a basic necessity of like like having a phone, toilet instead of a chamber pot etc
Virginia will sue separately over the provision in Obamacare, citing the constitutional power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, that anyone who declines to buy health insurance will be required to pay a fine. Asks Kenneth Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia: "If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce. If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"
So what you really want is for that person who gets sick with something like cancer, to lose their house, car and everything else to pay for treatment, or else for peopleto take their kids to the emergency room for every minor issue because they have no insurance and cant afford $50 or $100 to see a doctor, so that TAXPAYERS and hospitals foot the bill for those who cant pay, yup sounds great!
Poll Date Sample For/Favor Against/Oppose Spread
RCP Average 3/3 - 3/21 -- 39.7 50.4 Against/Oppose +10.7
CNN/Opinion Research 3/19 - 3/21 953 RV 39 59 Against/Oppose +20
CBS News 3/18 - 3/21 1059 A 37 48 Against/Oppose +11
Rasmussen Reports 3/19 - 3/20 1000 LV 41 54 Against/Oppose +13
Democracy Corps (D) 3/15 - 3/18 1016 RV 40 52 Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 3/16 - 3/17 900 RV 35 55 Against/Oppose +20
PPP (D) 3/12 - 3/14 1403 RV 45 49 Against/Oppose +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 3/11 - 3/14 1000 A 36 48 Against/Oppose +12
Pew Research 3/10 - 3/14 1500 A 38 48 Against/Oppose +10
Associated Press/GfK 3/3 - 3/8 1002 A 41 43 Against/Oppose +2
Gallup 3/4 - 3/7 1014 A 45 48 Against/Oppose +3
My only question about this new law is why did they pass a law mandating "universal health insurance" and not pass a law mandating "universal medical care"? Cut out the middle man (insurance company's) and provide universal health care to all American's (homeless, working or not). Cap fees and co-pays for prescriptions, no fees for preventive/annual exams and check-ups. We've got most of Europe as an example to find what does and doesn't work, why are we re-inventing the wheel with something totally untried???
It has been the environment of personal freedom and responsibility, along with citizens embrace of personal independent spirit, which has made this nation the most successful the world has ever known. Europe is made of countries whose greatness is in the past. Today, Europe is known for beautiful architecture and art ? all works of the past. The breakthroughs in technology and medicine have mainly come from the US. Without our success in those areas, Europe would not be able to enjoy some of those assets. Socialism breeds mediocrity. A free competitive market and self responsibility lays the groundwork for excellence and discovery. We are in the process of making our choice.
by RobAla March 23, 2010 6:53 PM EDT
I would agree with you if there were no Corporations too big to fail. To me, that is monopolistic by definition. Why should a safety net exist for the greedy in our Corporate industry, but no safety net be allowed for the American citizen needing healthcare? Our priorities based on the interpretation of the Constitution should empower the citizen, less so the corporation.
The state hate it, The public is divided on it yet Barry, Nancy and Harry all think it is some great victory.
It will not stand and it will be dismantled. A shallow victory by shallow dishonest people.
And the loosers here are the American People who had hoped for productive health care reform were instead sholdered with a pile of you know what because Barry, Nancy and Harry decided to push it through.
The only way to stop the health care reform law is for Congress to repeal it.