More

Sebelius Moves To Dismiss Health Reform Lawsuit

BOB LEWIS   05/24/10 10:30 PM ET   AP

Health Care Lawsuit Sebelius

RICHMOND, Va. — President Barack Obama's administration on Monday asked a federal judge in Virginia to dismiss the state's lawsuit alleging Congress overstepped its constitutional bounds with the new health care reform 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's Republican attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Richmond less than eight hours after Congress enacted the law. It argues that requiring people to buy health coverage or pay a fee exceeds federal powers limited by the Constitution's 10th Amendment.

More than a dozen state attorneys general have sued over the legislation on broadly similar grounds in cases that are likely be determined by the Supreme Court.

The conservative attorney general sued in defense of a Virginia law enacted this winter that exempts state residents from being required to have health coverage.

Sebelius argues in her dismissal motion, however, that Virginia lacks the standing to sue.

"A state cannot ... manufacture its own standing to challenge a federal law by simple expedient of passing a statute purporting to nullify it," read the motion. "Otherwise, a state could import almost any political or policy dispute into federal court by enacting its side of the argument into state law."

Sebelius also contends that the new law, passed solely by the ruling Democrats in Congress and signed by a Democratic president, is constitutional.

"Even if Virginia could surmount this jurisdictional barrier, its claim still would fail because Congress, in adopting the minimum coverage provision, acted well within its authority under the Commerce Clause," the motion says.

The mandate for most U.S. residents to carry health insurance starting in 2014 is at the heart of the federal law's goal of medical coverage for all. Without it, the Justice Department explains in the filing, the new law – and its efforts to contain costs – becomes moot.

"When accidents or illnesses inevitably occur, the uninsured still receive medical assistance, even if they cannot pay. As Congress documented, such uncompensated health care costs – $43 billion in 2008 – are passed on to the other participants in the health care market: the federal government, state and local governments, health care providers, insurers, and the insured population," the motion says.

But the "minimum coverage provision," more than any other act of Obama and the Democratic Congress, has stoked the angriest reactions, particularly by conservative tea party groups across the nation. For the federal government to tell individuals and families what they must purchase tramples a basic liberty, they argue.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
RICHMOND, Va. — President Barack Obama's administration on Monday asked a federal judge in Virginia to dismiss the state's lawsuit alleging Congress overstepped its constitutional bounds with th...
RICHMOND, Va. — President Barack Obama's administration on Monday asked a federal judge in Virginia to dismiss the state's lawsuit alleging Congress overstepped its constitutional bounds with th...
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 397
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
tnkeating
Dyslexic agnostic insomniac
04:08 PM on 06/14/2010
I determine what my minimum coverage is, and furthermore I determine what is the value of services received. Oh well, I think my unemployment benefits run out long before I have to make my first payment into Obamacare.
08:18 PM on 05/25/2010
The legal arguments are predicated on the belief that the Federal Government cannot mandate the purchase of insurance. Many have forgotten that Medicare is a forced pay health insurance for when we ae "older" and Social Security is a forced pay retirement annuity. Should any of these health insurance lawsuits be found applicable by SCOTUS than both Medicare and Social Security and Medicare programs (and their payments) would have to stop immediately as a result.

Are the Republicans so willing to move forward when this is a possible option? They would go down forever as the party that eliminated Social Security & Medicare (as most Tea-Party members are over 50 the impact of the elimination of both programs would hit them the hardest).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
08:34 PM on 05/25/2010
really...cause the dems always want to limit the scope of the court to just the case currently before the court...like they don't want the heller decision to apply to any city but d.c....so by that standard when the court finds the mandate unconstitutional it should only apply to the healthcare reform bill...right guys.....
DianneinCA
running forward, laughing...
10:17 PM on 05/25/2010
Good points, Gwedough. Most the Republicans that are ranting against HCR do it solely to rile up their base. This was originally a Republican idea and was included in the HCR because it was a good idea. But the GOP has gone so far off the fringe cliff they can no longer support something that was their idea because their base would not like it.

First Fan
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTtransplant
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we gro
05:12 PM on 05/25/2010
You know, it really amazes me...did these AG's do any thinking before they filed suit? Somehow I don't think so.

Didn't they even consider that our President (former Constitutional Law Professor) would have had this law gone over with a fine-tooth comb BEFORE it was ever passed??? You bet he did! This President is not a fool!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
mackbolan
Libertas inaestimabilis res est
07:09 PM on 05/25/2010
the congress can basically pass anything they want...the president can sigh anything he wants...but it is up to the scotus to determine if what was passed is constitutional....if obama was so smart he would have known that the gun ban in d.c. was unconstitutional....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MaybeMilo
"You can't fight in here. This is the War room!"
07:32 PM on 05/25/2010
So if the SCOTUS says it's perfectly fine, even 5-4, you'll support it?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTtransplant
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we gro
07:32 PM on 05/25/2010
This law is constitutional. Read it.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AyeChart
Retired Army, half-retired physician
10:31 AM on 05/26/2010
Oh, you are so gullible. Obama and Democrats and sometimes Republicans have ignored the Constitution many times--half of Washington, D.C., is probably unconstitutional. You really think Obama cares about the Constitution or whether the law passes muster or not?
04:40 PM on 05/25/2010
The commerce clause states nothing that the federal government can mandate you to purchase goods and services.

Every state in the Union needs to be filing law suits.

What's more troubling than anything is that so many Americans don't realize how much their taxes will increase from this. They are taking a lying President's word for it - and the media is giving him a pass!

If anyone wants to know if he's lying - ask a realtor! There is a 3.8% tax on home sales included in the healthcare bill. Not income tax - but it's a tax.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
sviolette
Cops Pepper Spraying the Constitution!!!
05:27 PM on 05/25/2010
Why don't we just remove all laws the conservatives don't agree with? Laws are bad, taxes are bad, healthcare is bad, Wall Street Banksters and Oil Companies are good.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AyeChart
Retired Army, half-retired physician
10:32 AM on 05/26/2010
Good idea! Can we count on you to vote that way?
photo
Daphydd
Lets play some music
06:37 PM on 05/25/2010
I don't think so.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:33 PM on 05/25/2010
Health care reform, not the insurance reform that was passed, is what many desire. Controlling insurance companies and mandating coverage are not what many had in mind.
The SCOTUS will likely unravel the legal issues.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
sviolette
Cops Pepper Spraying the Constitution!!!
05:29 PM on 05/25/2010
Obama won the election. Get over it!!! The healthcare bill passed. Get over that too!!!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AyeChart
Retired Army, half-retired physician
10:35 AM on 05/26/2010
No no no no no! 63% of people want it repealed--and that includes 51% of Democrats! I am not getting over it. Along with a large number of other citizens, I'm going to work toward repeal. Get over THAT!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
margoharris
I used to be Snow White but I drifted.
07:51 PM on 05/25/2010
You don't want regulation on the insurance companies? They are ripping you off left and right and when you get sick they drop you, well no more. Ask someone who actually had to use their benefits for a serious disease like cancer and had to go bankrupt, ask them how they feel, or someone like me who has a pre-existing condition or has a child who has lukemia and see how they feel.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
AyeChart
Retired Army, half-retired physician
10:39 AM on 05/26/2010
There are already massive amounts of regulations.

As for "ripping off" consumers, insurance companies are a LOW PROFIT MARGIN business, they are not making huge profits, and you should grab hold of reality before posting.

As for pre-existing conditions, once you do not not allow exclusion for such, you are no longer dealing with INSURANCE, and you should stop calling it that and again grab reality before it escapes you again.

Can you buy INSURANCE for your car AFTER you wreck it? Can you buy INSURANCE for your house AFTER it burns down? Of course not. Insurance actuaries would not allow such.

Without exclusion for pre-existing conditions, the COSTS of the so-called insurance will skyrocket--which may be Obama's plan to make insurance companies look bad. But it's only REALITY. If people can wait till they are ill and THEN buy insurance to cover their pre-existing illness, insurance will cost much.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dangerous Dan
Because I can!
03:24 PM on 05/25/2010
Damn, She looks drained, sickly, washed out.
Is this a picture of health supported by this administration?
JB1977
My micro bio is empty
04:40 PM on 05/25/2010
Speaking of washed out, nice photo of yourself.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:44 PM on 05/25/2010
Belly laughing right now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
N8tracks
I'm a workaholic
03:16 PM on 05/25/2010
You don't have the "freedom" to stick others with your health-care bill. If you earn income in this country you must pay taxes and be insured.
04:38 PM on 05/25/2010
Actually - you don't have the "freedom" to stick others with your health-care bill. This country should encourage you to earn a wage and take care of yourself.

However the liberal democrats want to call it - if you are an income earner it's not your responsibility to take care of the millions of lazy and illegal immigrants.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTtransplant
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we gro
04:46 PM on 05/25/2010
You're not making any sense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
margoharris
I used to be Snow White but I drifted.
07:30 PM on 05/25/2010
Those very poor people who come here are desperate to earn money and feed their families. They are NOT lazy. They work effin hard at jobs that Americans won't do. They pay taxes too. They pay billions into Social Security and never collect, they pay sales taxes, and payroll taxes. They are hardworking people. It is abvious you don't know any.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTtransplant
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we gro
04:45 PM on 05/25/2010
Fanned!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZeraLee
A Citizen's View from Main Street
02:50 PM on 05/25/2010
The requirement to buy health insurance balances the liability created by Reagan when he signed "The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)" (part of COBRA), which requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency medical treatment regardless of ability to pay. There is no provision for reimbursement.

If people want to opt out of the insurance, then they should opt out of the emergency treatment too. If they want to be honest about it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeLoup
Res ipsa loquitur, ergo tace!
02:11 PM on 05/25/2010
To all those AGs who are supposed to know the law, I have two items for you:

1) United States v Comstock 2008
2) Jacobson v Commonwealth 1905

As soon as Sec. Sebelius's lawyers introduce these two precedents to the SCOTUS, it'll be game over for you guys and gals.

Go back to more important matters; and take the Blue Pill.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTtransplant
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we gro
04:52 PM on 05/25/2010
Exactly, LeLoup! Many don't understand that! Fanned!
photo
Daphydd
Lets play some music
06:42 PM on 05/25/2010
All these AG's are just trying to get a campaign rolling for higher office. They know these frivolous lawsuits will be tossed out.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
naschkatze
A free man creates himself.
12:17 PM on 05/25/2010
That's right, Obama administration, don't allow any debate on the issue, and please, apologists, spare me the meme that the time to debate was before the legislation was passed. Debate was shut down at that point also.
01:18 PM on 05/25/2010
So much for Transparency ! This administration is a Dictatorship.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
N8tracks
I'm a workaholic
03:18 PM on 05/25/2010
That's just about the dumbest thing you could have written.
GraceNotes
We live for books.
01:31 PM on 05/25/2010
You cannot have a debate when the weapon of choice is to filibuster.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stached Man
12:14 PM on 05/25/2010
... so how much TAXPAYER money are the stat AGs gonna waste on this BS ... ???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
darkstar528
01:24 PM on 05/25/2010
Less than the bill will waste if it stays in it's current form, per CBOs more recent cost analysis, not me...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
N8tracks
I'm a workaholic
03:21 PM on 05/25/2010
Wastes? How does expanding insurance a waste?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
sviolette
Cops Pepper Spraying the Constitution!!!
05:41 PM on 05/25/2010
How exactly is healthcare insurance a waste? Please elaborate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Canary503
An opinionated Iowan
11:46 AM on 05/25/2010
Good for Sec. Sebelius. Legal scholars---but who reads them---have been ridiculing the state's lawsuits since they were first mentioned but nothing had been filed in court, to set forth the basis for the push-back. It's good to finally see something on the record on this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tarpon22
11:40 AM on 05/25/2010
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the past Insurance Commissioner for the state of Kansas.

Also she is a member of The Builderburg Group.

This woman is part of the Health Insurance Scam on American and in fact helped make the rules Insurance Companies fllec Society with.

ANOTHER CROOK
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
N8tracks
I'm a workaholic
03:22 PM on 05/25/2010
Stupid is as stupid comments.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dangerous Dan
Because I can!
03:27 PM on 05/25/2010
She's not in Kansas anymore.
Leave Health Care insurance to the states, where it belongs.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTtransplant
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we gro
04:55 PM on 05/25/2010
And we see what a wonderful job the states have done with it over the past several decades, don't we!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim281
Just slighty to the left of John Lennon
11:09 AM on 05/25/2010
These discussions are so predictable!

If it's beneficial to the people, Democrats support it and republicans oppose it.

If it's beneficial to Big Business, republicans support ot, and Democrats oppose it.

I just don't get it! WHY are there so many who oppose the measures that benefit the people, and the country at large????
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:26 AM on 05/25/2010
Because many people engage in the collective delusion that one day they're going to be fabulously wealthy, and they're going to want to keep all of their money. It's a selfish delusion, but a prevalent one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim281
Just slighty to the left of John Lennon
12:12 PM on 05/25/2010
FANNED!

Thanks for your response!

A wise young lady once told me "money is only dirty paper". (She worked at a bank, counting cash.)

She's right, you know. Seeing other people find contentment or happiness, or getting the care they need, provides an inner smile that money has nothing to do with.

Share the wealth! Be glad for others!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
naschkatze
A free man creates himself.
12:20 PM on 05/25/2010
Yes, that is the new American dream. (The old one was that I was going to have a job, buy a modest house and family car, and educate my children.)
12:08 PM on 05/25/2010
Boy, I wish my world were that cut and dried.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim281
Just slighty to the left of John Lennon
12:13 PM on 05/25/2010
;-)

It can be, you know!
11:04 AM on 05/25/2010
Some continually state that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that citizens pay for health-care. They easily ignore the wording of the preamble - We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The same also seemingly ignore that the constitution specifically gives them the power in Section 7 and Section 8. Section 7 - All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Section 8- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. The word Impost means: A tax or a similar mandatory payment. Since the word "Tax" is already mentioned, I only can conclude that the framers are giving Congress the power to institute a similar Mandatory payment. Many fail to understand when interpreting the constitution, as is the case in all writings there is expressed as well as implied meaning.
11:09 AM on 05/25/2010
Very thoughtful post. Very intelligent with no name calling.
11:15 AM on 05/25/2010
Thank you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FernandoRuiz
11:21 AM on 05/25/2010
Wizzardly, you realize that okaygive is arguing the opposite of what you're arguing right? I just want to make sure you're on the same page here.
11:19 AM on 05/25/2010
Are you the smartest person ever? This post should be required reading.