Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is one of several AGs around the country who have filed suit against the government over the constitutionality of the health care bill. | Courtesy of cuccinelli.com
While progressives in Washington, D.C. celebrate the passage of sweeping health care legislation, attorney generals around the country are questioning its constitutionality.
Their main issue with the legislation is the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or face financial penalties.
For more than 230 years, the government has never forced its citizens to purchase anything, as there is no provision in the Constitution that grants the Congress this authority.
Shailagh Murray reported in Monday’s edition of The Washington Post that as of 2014, individuals who do not have health insurance would be charged fines of no less than $750.
Attorney generals from at least 14 states have filed lawsuits since President Barack Obama signed the bill into law Monday contesting the authority of Congress to require citizens to purchase health insurance.
“The top state lawyers in Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, Washington and Colorado joined in the complaint filed immediately after the president’s signing ceremony,” Pete Williams of MSNBC.com reported Tuesday.
Williams only mentioned 13 states; Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli opted to file a separate lawsuit, as Virginia law states, “No resident of this Commonwealth … shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage.” This statute gives Cuccinelli the unique ability to challenge the federal law as it is in direct conflict with that of the state.
Those who support the legislation’s authority say the law is protected under the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants the government the authority to “regulate commerce.” This clause states that once an individual engages in commerce, Congress can then regulate those activities.
It is not only a stretch to say that this clause gives the government authority to require the purchase of goods and services against the will of the people, but approaches the realm of encroaching on all Americans’ freedoms.
In the past, it has been true that judgment tends to fall on the side of federal law, yet the unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause has left many opponents to the legislation confident that their case is strong. If Congress’ authority to regulate is subject to individuals’ participation in commerce, how can the government then require, in the form of mandated participation, the purchase of goods and services?
It is important to recognize that precedent is a fundamental aspect of the U.S. judicial system, and that by further expanding Congress’ authority to regulate by mandate, we are opening the door to a new era of government intervention and regulation of our lives.
As Americans, we have the right to a government that remains within the confines of the Constitution.
By granting this authority, we are taking a big step away from our country’s constitutional tradition.
Jason Cutbirth is a UH junior and may be reached at [email protected]
I see the title of the Supreme Court Cast States v Federal Government 2011.
Wow. Jason, you should probably think or research before you open your stink hole. Virginians are certainly required to purchase auto insurance. It is not a long shot to consider that healthcare in Virginia can be considered interstate commerce. Virginia has plenty of hospitals owned by companies based outside of Virginia. There’s a Blue Cross in every state. That aside people will be subsidized up to way above the poverty line and poorer people will be given a form of Medicaid. People with healthcare through their employers (who will also be given help to get insurance to their workers) wont be effected at all. This fine is purely a penalty or aristocratic jerks who want to snub all the other hard working taxpayers by only purchasing insurance when they get sick, abusing the preexisting condition denial clause, then canceling their insurance afterwards. That phobe Cuccinelli is just trying to play politics. He’s going to spend a ridiculous amount on a frivolous lawsuit. If he thinks that this lawsuit will win, then he’s not only grossly ignorant of the law, but despicable for trying to use taxpayer dollars to override the hard fought legislation of the house and senate like some king swatting a fly. If he doesn’t think he’ll win (I suspect he knows this), then he should just drop the suit and stop trying to exceed his station. God help us all if this farse actually strike down the law. There are thousands of Virginians who are praying for that preexisting condition denial clause and the thsouands more who lost thier house/savings/life because of max benefit denials.
Hold up. If I live in Virgina do I HAVE TO HAVE A CAR. Is it required for me to drive a car. What if I walk,use the subay,bus, or taxi. Am I required by law to purchase Auto Insurance..NO! But according to this I HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE OR THE GOVT WILL FINE ME. BUT if I do decide to drive a car I must buy insurance. SHOW ME WHERE IN THE OUR CONSITUTION WHERE I HAVE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE
Impeach Pelosi, Reid, and Obama for gross “misdemeanors” as defined in the United States Constitution. Obama swore to defend the constitution when he was sworn in at the inauguration but has failed to do so by signing this health care plan into law.
I am expecting that the judicial system to do its duty and declare this law unconstitutional.
the statement that the government has never forced its citizens to purchase anything is not true at all. for example, we are required to purchase auto insurance, and if we do not, then we will get a fine. if you’re required to buy insurance on your car, then wouldn’t it make sense to buy insurance on your life? as for the comment about impeaching these individuals, are you not aware that this legislation has gone through the house and senate? it’s not just pelosi, reid, and obama. you may say “not one republican voted for it,” and that is true. however, whether republicans voted or not, the majority spoke. yes, democrats are the majority, but how did they get that way? we, as americans, voted them in. you may not have, but the majority of the nation did. i dont understand why individuals say that congress is ignoring the public. that’s not true. lawmakers were voted in by the people, and the majority of the people obviously wanted health care reform.
Well if that is the case then it should be illegal for Texas to require drivers to have car insurance right?
They are absolutely correct to challenge the bill on Constitutional grounds because, as the author stated, it is the first time the national government has ever required an individual to purchase or own a good or service simply because they are alive – its unconstitutional, its wrong, and it directly conflicts with a society based on liberty and free choice.
Secondly, the power to do any of the things listed in the bill are all derived from a SINGLE clause in the Constitution: “The Congress shall have power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.”
It was placed in the Constitution in order to prevent states from placing tariffs and other sorts of trade restrictions on goods flowing in and out to other states in order to gain an arbitrary advantage over others, and as a result lowering economic welfare overall.
Knowing this, it is a bizarre and offensive stretch to claim that this clause gives Congress the power to create health insurance exchanges, mandate who private insurers cover and don’t cover, create expanding price controls on care paid for by the government, fine employers for not offering coverage to employees, and force individuals to have some form of health insurance.
It was NEVER intended to be a catchall for anything that can conceivably cross state lines in order to give the national government free reign over any and all aspects of individuals’ lives.
The key difference is that you can choose whether or not you want to drive. You can’t really choose whether or not to be alive. (Yes I realize that you can commit suicide so let’s skip the sarcastic responses). The auto insurance mandate is dependent upon you voluntarily engaging in some activity, whereas the health insurance mandate is not.
I just want to say that I love the dialog, nice to see some people thinking about this stuff. I was going to go into why car insurance is a completely irrelevant and misleading comparison to this healthcare mandate, but others have beaten me to it and done it better then I could.
Two other quick comments though, for “student”, you said “whether republicans voted or not, the majority spoke”. True the majority spoke but you obviously misunderstand a key purpose of the constitution, the idea being its purpose is to protect the individual from abuses by a numerical majority. You can amend it but you cant ignore it or change its meaning to fit an agenda. The argument is not whether or not the elected majority spoke, but do they have the authority to implement the legislation.
And Ms. Susan Doenim, I find it humorous that you would use the Auto Insurance comparison and then accuse others of not doing research. You said, “This fine is purely a penalty or aristocratic jerks who want to snub all the other hard working taxpayers by only purchasing insurance when they get sick, abusing the preexisting condition denial clause, then canceling their insurance afterwards.” This is a seriously misguided statement, the problem is not ‘aristocratic jerks’ , its bad healthcare legislation that relies on force rather than demand in order to function. ‘This fine is purely a penalty’, exactly right, but its immoral to take away someones right to choose their own style of healthcare, your health is your own responsibility, penalizing people for exercising their right to make decisions about their health is simply wrong.
Perhaps that was the intent (debatable), George Wallace, but legal precedent has advanced it beyond that. Fortunately, the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate industry-wide price fixing scams (Swift and Company v United States) and promote civil rights (Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States).
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Commerce_Clause
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm