Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
While in a different case an Appeals Court has ruled that Virginia doesn't have standing to sue on the grounds it named, now this District Court has ruled the opposite for a group of Mississippi citizens - on different grounds, of course. These Mississippi citizens CAN sue against Obamacare. Their lawsuit is now proceeding.
Glad I'm not on the Supreme Court, where all this is eventually heading. I'd go crazy just to keep all the different lawsuits and rulings straight.
------------------------------------
http://leadercall.com/columns/x1095937624/Ruling-allows-healthcare-suit-its-journey-in-court
September 6, 2011
Ruling allows healthcare suit its journey in court
Tue Sep 06, 2011, 09:51 AM CDT
LAUREL — Last year, a group of Mississippi citizens, including Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, asked my firm to file the nation’s first private class action petition designed to challenge the federal government's new healthcare law.
The United States Justice Department, lead by Attorney General Eric Holder, responded with an extensive Motion to Dismiss, asking the federal court to reject our claims. More than 250 pages of legal briefing were then presented to the court for consideration.
Last week, after a detailed review of the record, United States District Court Judge Keith Starrett denied the government’s motion, providing us a legal victory by allowing the petitioners to proceed.
The lawsuit seeks a determination – based on a number of legal theories – that select provisions of the new law violate the Constitution by mandating American citizens to purchase health insurance from a corporate insurer, since the government doesn’t have the authority to require citizens to buy any good or service simply as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.
Though Congress seeks a justification of the mandate under its power to regulate commerce, its approach does not comport with either the text or purpose of the Commerce Clause. The mandate does not purport to regulate activity. Instead, it illogically attempts to regulate individual inaction.
Regulating or even proscribing activity is distinctly different from requiring persons to affirmatively engage in it, particularly when they are not offering commercial services and object to entering into a contract with an unrelated private entity. It is one thing to contend Congress has the power to regulate certain activities of the automotive industry, for instance; it is quite another for it to require every American to purchase a GMC automobile.
Even in wartime, when the production of material is crucial to survival, Congress has never claimed such power.
During World War II, no farmer was forced to grow food for troops; no worker was forced to build airplanes. Though the government encouraged the public to buy bonds to finance the war effort, it never mandated their purchase. While Congress did levy a military draft, it did so as necessary and proper to its enumerated authority "to raise and support armies" and not under its commerce or taxing powers. What Congress cannot do during a wartime emergency, it cannot do in peacetime simply to avoid the political costs of raising taxes to pay for new programs.
Glad I'm not on the Supreme Court, where all this is eventually heading. I'd go crazy just to keep all the different lawsuits and rulings straight.
------------------------------------
http://leadercall.com/columns/x1095937624/Ruling-allows-healthcare-suit-its-journey-in-court
September 6, 2011
Ruling allows healthcare suit its journey in court
Tue Sep 06, 2011, 09:51 AM CDT
LAUREL — Last year, a group of Mississippi citizens, including Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, asked my firm to file the nation’s first private class action petition designed to challenge the federal government's new healthcare law.
The United States Justice Department, lead by Attorney General Eric Holder, responded with an extensive Motion to Dismiss, asking the federal court to reject our claims. More than 250 pages of legal briefing were then presented to the court for consideration.
Last week, after a detailed review of the record, United States District Court Judge Keith Starrett denied the government’s motion, providing us a legal victory by allowing the petitioners to proceed.
The lawsuit seeks a determination – based on a number of legal theories – that select provisions of the new law violate the Constitution by mandating American citizens to purchase health insurance from a corporate insurer, since the government doesn’t have the authority to require citizens to buy any good or service simply as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.
Though Congress seeks a justification of the mandate under its power to regulate commerce, its approach does not comport with either the text or purpose of the Commerce Clause. The mandate does not purport to regulate activity. Instead, it illogically attempts to regulate individual inaction.
Regulating or even proscribing activity is distinctly different from requiring persons to affirmatively engage in it, particularly when they are not offering commercial services and object to entering into a contract with an unrelated private entity. It is one thing to contend Congress has the power to regulate certain activities of the automotive industry, for instance; it is quite another for it to require every American to purchase a GMC automobile.
Even in wartime, when the production of material is crucial to survival, Congress has never claimed such power.
During World War II, no farmer was forced to grow food for troops; no worker was forced to build airplanes. Though the government encouraged the public to buy bonds to finance the war effort, it never mandated their purchase. While Congress did levy a military draft, it did so as necessary and proper to its enumerated authority "to raise and support armies" and not under its commerce or taxing powers. What Congress cannot do during a wartime emergency, it cannot do in peacetime simply to avoid the political costs of raising taxes to pay for new programs.
