Obama admin to ask Federal Judiciary to block VA's lawsuit

[Anarchist420]

"Attorneys for the Obama Administration are asking a federal judge to dismiss a suit filed by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Obama administration asserts that Congress is well within its right to require individuals to secure private health insurance under new federal law.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued in a motion filed hours before a midnight deadline that the law is well within the scope of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Richmond in less that eight hours after the health care reform bill was signed by Obama."
link:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=35743

I really wish the Supreme Court would overturn the whole law.

 

[her209]

Obama admin to ask Federal Judiciary to block VA's lawsuit

blocking a lawsuit != dismissing a lawsuit

Isn't that what one is supposed to do when they are named as a defendant in a lawsuit?

 

[Patranus]

Hmmm.

The branch A of the government using branch B of the government to protect branch C of the government.

Talk about separation of powers.

 

[MotF Bane]

The Obama administration asserts that Congress is well within its right to require individuals to secure private health insurance under new federal law.

Fucking bullshit.

argued .... that the law is well within the scope of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

Rule 2 for federal government expansion: when in doubt, trot out the Commerce clause.

 

[BoberFett]

Rule 2 for federal government expansion: when in doubt, trot out the Commerce clause.

Gotta love the Commerce Clause. In a document which outlines federal powers, a single phrase invalidates the whole document by giving them unlimited powers.

And if that doesn't work the big government stooges can always fall back on the Preamble, because General Welfare means unlimited power as well.

Why do we have the Constitution again?

 

[MotF Bane]

Gotta love the Commerce Clause. In a document which outlines federal powers, a single phrase invalidates the whole document by giving them unlimited powers.

And if that doesn't work the big government stooges can always fall back on the Preamble, because General Welfare means unlimited power as well.

Why do we have the Constitution again?

Even if we didn't have the Commerce clause, the politicians would find something else, as you said, the Preamble first.

We have a Constitution for the politicians to pay lip service to, and wipe their ass with when they aren't campaigning.

 

[spidey07]

Hmmm.

The branch A of the government using branch B of the government to protect branch C of the government.

Talk about separation of powers.

Yep. Par for the course for a Dictator. Remember his call out of the supreme court in the state of the union? He view the other two branches as merely extensions to enforce his control.

 

[Acanthus]

Yep. Par for the course for a Dictator. Remember his call out of the supreme court in the state of the union? He view the other two branches as merely extensions to enforce his control.

dictator obama?

LMAO.

You guys are over the top.

(independent voter)

 

[her209]

Yep. Par for the course for a Dictator. Remember his call out of the supreme court in the state of the union? He view the other two branches as merely extensions to enforce his control.

Yeah, damn those "activist judges" "legislating from the bench"!

 

[spidey07]

Yeah, damn those "activist judges" "legislating from the bench"!

Upholding Freedom of Speech is what Obama was denouncing the SCOTUS for. Another sign of a dictator.

 

[Fern]

blocking a lawsuit != dismissing a lawsuit

Isn't that what one is supposed to do when they are named as a defendant in a lawsuit?

Hmmm.

The branch A of the government using branch B of the government to protect branch C of the government.

Talk about separation of powers.

Yeah, blocking != request for dismissal.

Yeah, the Exec branch is asking the Judicial branch to support the Legislative branch's (legal) position.

No, I don't think the exec is a party to the lawsuit.

Although I can't find any confirmation, I'd guess the Obama admin just filed an amicus brief in support of Congress. Nothing unusual or out of the ordinary about that.

Fern

 

[MotF Bane]

dictator obama?

LMAO.

You guys are over the top.

(independent voter)

Dictator, LOL. I keep Spidey on ignore, so I only see that lunacy when it gets quoted.

 

[nick1985]

Gotta love the Commerce Clause. In a document which outlines federal powers, a single phrase invalidates the whole document by giving them unlimited powers.

And if that doesn't work the big government stooges can always fall back on the Preamble, because General Welfare means unlimited power as well.

Why do we have the Constitution again?

Well said.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Hmmm.

The branch A of the government using branch B of the government to protect branch C of the government.

Talk about separation of powers.

happens all the time...nothing wrong with it...unless your patr-anus...

 

[nonlnear]

Rule 2 for federal government expansion: when in doubt, trot out the Commerce clause.

Which begs the question why we don't just scrap the commerce clause altogether in favor of something a lot narrower.

 

[drebo]

Which begs the question why we don't just scrap the commerce clause altogether in favor of something a lot narrower.

Because it would require a Constitutional Ammendment which would take away a LOT of power of Congress. It'll never happen.

That said, the Supreme Court could rule the Commerce Clause is not applicable to the law, and thus the law is Unconstitutional. If that happened, though, I'd bet we see a new bill introduced 2 seconds later that bars the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction on a particular matter (which is possible, though I'm not sure it's ever been done).

 

[halik]

Fucking bullshit.



Rule 2 for federal government expansion: when in doubt, trot out the Commerce clause.

It's been like that for a while; Obama isn't doing anything new here.

 

[Patranus]

Which begs the question why we don't just scrap the commerce clause altogether in favor of something a lot narrower.

Well, before FDR the commerce clause more closely resembled its original intent.

Remember how liquor had to have a constitutional amendment to outlaw it?

Well now the federal government outlaws lots of stuff, even stuff for personal use that never crosses state lines such as medical marijuana.

Riddle me this:
If the constitution had to be amended to outlaw liquor why isn't the same standard applied to marijuana?

 

[spidey07]

It's been like that for a while; Obama isn't doing anything new here.

Doesn't make it right. The bastardization of the commerce clause has indeed been going on for a while and it's still wrong. Any big expansion of federal power into your life has almost always been justified by a terribly wrong interpretation of it.

 

[Anarchist420]

Well, we've got the Commander in chief clause, the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause and a whole lot of other shit in the Constitution that would have to be thrown out. The Constitution has never been a good document at protecting liberties. Part of the nature of it was that it could be interpreted differently. I'm sick of not having free-enterprise.

 

[nonlnear]

Because it would require a Constitutional Ammendment which would take away a LOT of power of Congress.

Well duh.

It'll never happen.

Oh I know! Still it helps to crystallize in one's mind exactly what one believes the country needs - even if it's not going to happen.

That said, the Supreme Court could rule the Commerce Clause is not applicable to the law, and thus the law is Unconstitutional.

They could, and I would applaud it, but I'm not going to get my hopes up!

If that happened, though, I'd bet we see a new bill introduced 2 seconds later that bars the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction on a particular matter (which is possible, though I'm not sure it's ever been done).

I have only anecdotal legal knowledge so forgive my ignorance. How exactly do you mean it when you say "which is possible, though I'm not sure it's ever been done"? It kinda takes the "Supreme" out of Supreme Court. Honestly I think that would be the end of the USA.

 

[nonlnear]

Riddle me this:
If the constitution had to be amended to outlaw liquor why isn't the same standard applied to marijuana?

See you're talking common sense here and not thinking like a mindfucked Constitutional expert. The fact that they amended the Constitution to outlaw liquor in no way proves that a Constitutional amendment was Constitutionally required. It was only a matter of... political expedience. Now in the light of our superior understanding of the Constitution we see that it contains no limits on federal powers at all. We look back on the early attempts to consolidate federal authority using such naive maneuvers as amending the Constitution as strategically misguided. The statists back then gave too much ground to the mentally disturbed proponents of that disease called "liberty". We know better now.

 

[MotF Bane]

Which begs the question why we don't just scrap the commerce clause altogether in favor of something a lot narrower.

For one, government will not give up that kind of power. For two, as long as the Constitution can be changed, the government will change it to increase their power. And no, I'm not advocating an immutable Constitution.

 

[MotF Bane]

It's been like that for a while; Obama isn't doing anything new here.

Well, for the first item, that is new, but for the second, you are absolutely correct, it's nothing new.

 

[Rastus]

They are invoking the interstate commerce clause but people cannot buy insurance across state lines.