Alaska statement in joining 20 states in lawsuit

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by emilynghiem, Apr 24, 2010.

  1. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,652
    Thanks Received:
    1,878
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,301
    Alaska Joins Lawsuit Against Health Care Reform | Radio Kenai

    The Department of Law’s constitutional analysis of the federal health care bill is available at the following links:

    Summary: http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/042010-ExecSummary.pdf
    Opinion: http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/opinions/opinions_2010/10-002_ReconciliationAct.pdf

    Alaska Joins Lawsuit Against Health Care Reform
    4/20/2010

    Alaska is joining 20 other states in challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted federal health care reform legislation.

    Governor Sean Parnell stated that the case against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is based on the extent to which the federal government can exert power over the states.

    Attorney General Sullivan questions the federal government’s ability to mandate that every United States citizen purchase health insurance coverage beginning in 2014. The legislation states that citizens would have to pay a tax penalty of $695 a year or 2.5 percent of their annual income, whichever is higher, as punichment for not obtaining the insurance.

    Attorney General Sullivan called this portion of the law “unprecedented.” Sullivans says that United States citizens have never been required to buy a good or service as a condition of being a lawful citizen in the United States. the Constitution.

    Governor Parnell called the decision to sue to be more about Alaskans’ liberty interests than about health care legislation.

    The Department of Law’s constitutional analysis of the federal health care bill is available at the following links:

    Summary: http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/press/042010-ExecSummary.pdf
    Opinion: http://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/opinions/opinions_2010/10-002_ReconciliationAct.pdf
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Good.

    A shame we can't get SCOTUS to overturn all the other completely ridiculous provisions of that travesty, which are completely unrelated to supposed "health care reform".
     
  3. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,652
    Thanks Received:
    1,878
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,301
    This article gives the timeline for lawyers and judges to review the arguments, with some dates in May and June:
    Judge sets health care reform lawsuit timeline

    As for the argument that "federal govt supercedes state govt" that is only where state laws are unconstitutional. Here it is the other way around, where the federal laws violate the Constitution. Only if people consent, as in emergency cases of national security, can those rights be imposed upon; but here, the states and people clearly do not fully consent.

    Dude, I understand one of the motivations for the Tea Party outreach is to educate more of the public on Constitutional principles, process and structure; but if we have to go around suing to educate lawyers, judges and federal officials on what the laws are, and what "consent" is, this could be a huge mess. If they can't reach an agreement, and let those who "believe" this is constitutional fund it themselves, and not impose on those who DON'T consent and DON'T believe it is constitutional; this could lead to a wider political division that this country has not seen since the debate to abolish or expand slavery. If the interpretation cannot be resolved, I just hope and pray people are civil enough to allow separate policies, funded and supported voluntarily as with a public option, and not continue pushing for one side over the other which is what got this bill passed as junk.

    Neighbor, Pleez!

    Saturday, 24 April 2010 17:46 posted by emilynghiem Comment Link The reason federal government supercedes state governments is when the Constitution is being violated by state law. Likewise, where the federal government is abridging Constitutional rights of the states and the people, those Constitutional principles trump federal laws made in violation. Nowhere does the federal government have the right to violate its own Constitutional standards; if extreme measures are taken, such as in the case of national security that imposes on freedoms, the people and states must consent to such emergency measures. Here there is clearly no consent given, but direct opposition to infringement on Constitutional rights. ethics-commission.net
     
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    The cynically dubbed "public option" won't be optional at all.

    The Fabian socialists really need to stop lying to themselves.
     
  5. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,652
    Thanks Received:
    1,878
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,301
    The whole bill needs to be declared optional. Same with the IRS.
    To bring them up to constitutional standards. If they don't operate by consent, that is not respecting equal freedom and protections. (note: corporations and citizens also need to comply with constitutional standards in order to invoke rights thereunder. if we aren't equal under a grievance process, those with more power influence or resources will always have greater protection of interests. the only check left is whether citizens consent or not and must be protected and respected. otherwise the system loses integrity.)
     
  6. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,164
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,012
    Yawn!

    I'm sweeepy.
     
  7. Joe Steel
    Offline

    Joe Steel Class Warrior

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,052
    Thanks Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Ratings:
    +119
    Any state which sues should be considered in rebellion and should be subject to martial law. Every person involved in the suit should be hanged as a traitor.
     
  8. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,458
    21 States now with the balls to see that this administration and congress are screwed up.

    It's a good thing. Maybe the Supreme Court can throw out the whole HC law. That would be great.
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,652
    Thanks Received:
    1,878
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,301
    Rebellion against Tyrants is Obedience to God.
    Should we have hanged Jefferson as a traitor?
     

Share This Page