PDA

View Full Version : Nathan was right: States to Court over Health Reform


Tyburn
03-24-2010, 05:54 PM
But Illinois does not appear to be one of them :unsure-1:

Fourteen states, from Florida to Washington, have gone to court in an effort to block the new health care law, arguing that the federal government has no right to force their citizens to buy something that they may not want: medical insurance.

Thirteen of the states, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum (pictured), filed a joint federal lawsuit Monday in Pensacola, where they called the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of states," CNN reports. McCollum and 12 other attorneys general involved are Republicans; Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana is the lone Democrat.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, the state legal officers assert, is there a mandate requiring citizens to have health coverage. The new law, which offers subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance, imposes financial penalties on those who do not comply by 2014.

Lawsuits challenging federal authority often rely on the "commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "powers not delegated" to the federal government by the Constitution are "reserved to the states respectively." But efforts by states to circumvent federal laws are often trumped by the Constitution's "supremacy clause": laws passed by the Congress "shall be the supreme law of the land."

In Virginia, conservative Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II went to the federal courthouse in Richmond with his own arguments. The Virginia case claims that a state law enacted earlier this month prohibits the federal government from forcing coverage on citizens and creates an "immediate, actual controversy" between the state and federal government, giving Virginia unique standing to sue.

The Obama administration does not appear to be overly concerned. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said government lawyers are confident they will win the lawsuits.

"Lawsuits follow every bill that's passed," Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a dozen columnists, including Politics Daily's Jill Lawrence, at a roundtable in her office Tuesday. She said the new law was "written with care" and vetted by lawyers to make sure it can survive legal challenges.

The other states involved are Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah.

Its not whether they win that Obama should be taking notice of, its the fact that if his bill was supported, surely he wouldnt have a group of States going to court because they feel so badly about it. How can he claim triumph when the day after, half his country still dont aggree with him :huh:

:ninja: please note...thats criticism of Barack Obama, not criticism of the United States :ninja:

TENNESSEAN
03-24-2010, 07:55 PM
Its not whether they win that Obama should be taking notice of, its the fact that if his bill was supported, surely he wouldnt have a group of States going to court because they feel so badly about it. How can he claim triumph when the day after, half his country still dont aggree with him :huh:

:ninja: please note...thats criticism of Barack Obama, not criticism of the United States :ninja:[/QUOTE]

that's because there was never support to begin with. if there had been support. he would not have had to bend the system to its breaking point to get it passed.

the demorats forced this down Americans throats. they feel the American people are not competent to take care of themselves. the federal government has to do whats best for us weather we like it or not. its for our on good. (socialism)

the bill its self may not be socialism in your opinion. i believe it is. they are taking choices away from the people and forcing their system on us. to top that they are doing it at a time where it will bankrupt a lot of states.

at the end of the vote they chanted, YES WE CAN. they are so proud they got something passed against the will of the people. UNBELIVEABLE. the states are canting back NO YOU CANT.

Tyburn
03-24-2010, 08:40 PM
at the end of the vote they chanted, YES WE CAN. they are so proud they got something passed against the will of the people. UNBELIVEABLE. .

there in lies the greatest problem of them all. I am forbidden to say more :sad:

Max
03-24-2010, 09:01 PM
The other states involved are Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah.


this is what i find funny, if you look at the members of the House who voted for the bill all the dems from Colorado, Michigan, South Carolina and all but 2 from Pennsylvania and Virginia and 1 from Texas voted for the bill and now their stated are taking the bill for court.

Tyburn
03-24-2010, 09:19 PM
this is what i find funny, if you look at the members of the House who voted for the bill all the dems from Colorado, Michigan, South Carolina and all but 2 from Pennsylvania and Virginia and 1 from Texas voted for the bill and now their stated are taking the bill for court.

Its not the same people going to court who voted "aye" though is it :huh: I presume its their Republican counterparts...and that lone democrat from wherever it was :laugh:

flo
03-24-2010, 09:59 PM
BTW...guaranteeing Stupak that the federally funded abortion language would be taken out by executive order was a BALD-FACED LIE.

Maybe he knew that, he got some airport concessions, almost a million $ worth. Perhaps he was just looking for a loophole to go along with his dem majority. I don't care the reason, it's really shameful.

Also, the "immediate" fixes they promised:

*Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

*Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.

*Uninsured adults with a pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new program that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.

turns out they have to do some "tweaking" after all...can't promise those things like they claimed before the vote.

One thing they can promise is the 16,000+ new IRS workers to collect your taxes and MAKE SURE you've bought an insurance policy.

:punch::angry:

Tyburn
03-24-2010, 11:34 PM
I'm really so increadibly sorry this has all turned into such a nightmare for you all :sad:

Neezar
03-24-2010, 11:37 PM
I'm really so increadibly sorry this has all turned into such a nightmare for you all :sad:

Thank you, Dave. And thanks for not kicking a man when he is down.


:laugh:

surveyorshawn
03-24-2010, 11:54 PM
Here is a copy of the actual suit that was filed:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Pensacola Division
STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through
BILL McCOLLUM, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA;
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, by and through
HENRY McMASTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
STATE OF NEBRASKA, by and through
JON BRUNING, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA;
STATE OF TEXAS, by and through
GREG ABBOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS;
STATE OF UTAH, by and through
MARK L. SHURTLEFF, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF UTAH;
STATE OF LOUISIANA, by and through
JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA;
STATE OF ALABAMA, by and through
TROY KING, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA;
STATE OF MICHIGAN, by and through
MICHAEL A. COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF COLORADO, by and through
JOHN W. SUTHERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO;
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, by
and through THOMAS W. CORBETT, Jr.,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
2
STATE OF WASHINGTON, by and through
ROBERT M. McKENNA, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON;
STATE OF IDAHO, by and through
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; and
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, by and through
MARTY J. JACKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
Plaintiffs,
v. Case
No.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official
capacity as the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY; TIMOTHY F.
GEITHNER, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of the United States Department
of the Treasury; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and HILDA
L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary
of the United States Department of Labor,
Defendants.
___________________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through BILL McCOLLUM,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, [ADD STATES AND AG’s],
file this action against Defendants, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS); KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as
3
the Secretary of HHS; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
(Treasury); TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
Treasury; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL); and HILDA L.
SOLIS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of DOL, and state:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. On March 23, 2010, a new universal healthcare regime, titled the “Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act,” H.R. 3590 (the Act), was signed into law by the
President. The Act, which exceeds 2,400 pages, is available is
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:
h3590pp.txt.pdf (accessed March 23, 2010).
2. The Act represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of
individuals living in the Plaintiffs’ respective states, by mandating that all citizens and
legal residents of the United States have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax
penalty. The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either
directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying
healthcare coverage. By imposing such a mandate, the Act exceeds the powers of the
United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to
the Constitution.
3. In addition, the tax penalty required under the Act, which must be paid by
uninsured citizens and residents, constitutes an unlawful capitation or direct tax, in
violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States.
4
4. The Act also represents an unprecedented encroachment on the
sovereignty of the states. For example, it requires that Florida vastly broaden its
Medicaid eligibility standards to accommodate upwards of 50 percent more enrollees,
many of whom must enroll or face a tax penalty under the Act, and imposes onerous new
operating rules that Florida must follow. The Act requires Florida to spend billions of
additional dollars, and shifts substantial administrative costs to Florida for, inter alia,
hiring and training new employees, as well as requiring that new and existing employees
devote a considerable portion of their time to implementing the Act. This onerous
encroachment occurs at a time when Florida faces having to make severe budget cuts to
offset shortfalls in its already-strained budget, which the state constitution requires to be
balanced each fiscal year (unlike the federal budget), and at a time when Florida’s
Medicaid program already consumes more than a quarter of the State’s financial outlays.
Plaintiffs cannot effectively withdraw from participating in Medicaid, because Medicaid
has, over the more than four decades of its existence, become customary and necessary
for citizens throughout the United States, including the Plaintiffs’ respective states; and
because individual enrollment in Plaintiffs’ respective Medicaid programs, which
presently cover tens of millions of residents, can only be accomplished by their continued
participation in Medicaid.
5. Further, the Act converts what had been a voluntary federal-state
partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program in which the discretion of the
Plaintiffs and their sister states is removed, in derogation of the core constitutional
principle of federalism upon which this Nation was founded. In so doing, the Act
5
exceeds the powers of the United States and violates the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution.
6. The Act contains several unfunded mandates that will cost state
governments significantly.
7. For example, no Florida government entity or infrastructure exists to
discharge sufficiently all of the responsibilities that will be necessary to implement the
Act, to meet requirements related to increases in Medicaid enrollment under the Act, and
to operate healthcare insurance exchanges required by the Act.
8. By making federal funds potentially available at the discretion of federal
agencies, the Act acknowledges the immediate burden on Plaintiffs to invest and
implement the Act, but provides no guarantee that they will receive such funds or that the
Act’s implementation costs will be met.
9. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Act’s operation
to preserve their respective sovereignty and solvency, and to protect the individual
freedom, public health, and welfare of their citizens and residents.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3) because
no real property is involved, the district is situated in Florida, and the defendants are
agencies of the United States or officers thereof acting in their official capacity.
6
PARTIES
12. The State of Florida is a sovereign state and protector of the individual
freedom, public health, and welfare of its citizens and residents. Bill McCollum,
Attorney General of Florida, has been directly elected by the people of Florida to serve as
their chief legal officer and exercises broad statutory and common law authority to
protect the rights of the State of Florida and its people; Fla. Const. art. IV, § 4(b). The
State, by and through the Attorney General, has standing to assert the unconstitutionality
of the Act. He is authorized to appear in and attend all suits in which the state is
interested. § 16.02(4) & (5), Fla. Stat.
13. The State of South Carolina, by and through Henry McMaster, Attorney
General of South Carolina, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
14. The State of Nebraska Carolina, by and through Jon Bruning, Attorney
General of Nebraska, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
15. The State of Texas, by and through Greg Abbott, Attorney General of
Texas, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
16. The State of Utah, by and through Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General of
Utah, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
17. The State of Alabama, by and through Troy King, Attorney General of
Alabama, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
18. The State of Louisiana, by and through james D. “Buddy” Caldwell,
Attorney General of Louisiana, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
7
19. The State of Michigan, by and through Michael A. Cox, Attorney General
of Michigan, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
20. The State of Colorado, by and through John W. Suthers, Attorney General
of Colorado, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
21. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by and through Thomas W. Corbett,
Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania, is a sovereign state in the United States of
America.
22. The State of Washington, by and through Robert A. McKenna, Attorney
General of Washington, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
23. The State of Idaho, by and through Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney
General of Idaho, is a sovereign state in the United States of America.
24. The State of South Dakota, by and through Marty J. Jackley, Attorney
General of South Dakota, is a sovereign state in the United States of America
25. HHS is an agency of the United States, and is responsible for
administration and enforcement of the Act, through its center for Medicare and Medicaid
Services.
26. Kathleen Sebelius is Secretary of HHS, and is named as a party in her
official capacity.
27. Treasury is an agency of the United States, and is responsible for
administration and enforcement of the Act.
28. Timothy F. Geithner is Secretary of the Treasury, and is named as a party
in his official capacity.
8
29. DOL is an agency of the United States, and is responsible for
administration and enforcement of the Act.
30. Hilda L. Solis is Secretary of DOL, and is named as a party in her official
capacity.
BACKGROUND
The Medicaid Program Prior to the Act
31. Medicaid was established by Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965,
42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq., as the nation’s major healthcare initiative for low-income
persons. Each participating state’s Medicaid program has been funded jointly by the state
and the federal government.
32. From the beginning of Medicaid until passage of the Act, the states were
given considerable discretion to implement and operate their respective optional
Medicaid programs in accordance with state-specific designs regarding eligibility,
enrollment, and administration, so long as the programs met broad federal requirements.
33. The states were free to opt out of Medicaid and set up their own state
health or welfare plans, or to provide no such benefits at all. States, including Plaintiffs,
agreed to participate in Medicaid with the understanding that their continuing
participation was voluntary, as a matter of both law and fact.
34. None of the Plaintiffs agreed to become a Medicaid partner of the federal
government with an expectation that the terms of its participation would be altered
significantly by the federal government so as to make it financially infeasible for that
state either to remain in or to withdraw from the Medicaid program.
9
35. None of the Plaintiffs agreed to become a Medicaid partner of the federal
government with an expectation that the federal government would increase significantly
its control and reduce significantly that state’s discretion with respect to the Medicaid
program.
36. None of the Plaintiffs agreed to become a Medicaid partner of the federal
government with an expectation that, after the Medicaid program became entrenched in
the state, the federal government would alter the program’s requirements to expand
eligibility for enrollment beyond the state’s ability to fund its participation.
37. None of the Plaintiffs agreed to become a Medicaid partner of the federal
government with an expectation that the federal government would exploit its control
over Medicaid terms and eligibility as part of a coercive scheme to force all citizens and
residents to have healthcare coverage.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
38. The Act mandates that all United States citizens and legal residents have
qualifying healthcare coverage. If a person fails to do so, the federal government will
force that person to pay a penalty, the amount of which will be increased gradually
through 2016, reaching $750 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount
($2,250) per family, or 2 percent of household income, whichever is greater. After 2016,
the penalty will increase annually based on a cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions to
the tax penalty only apply for individuals with certain religious objections, American
Indians, those persons without coverage for less than three months, undocumented
immigrants, incarcerated individuals, or some individuals with financial hardships.
10
39. The Act greatly alters the federal-state relationship, to the detriment of the
states, with respect to Medicaid programs specifically and healthcare coverage generally.
40. The Act requires states to expand massively their Medicaid programs and
to create exchanges through which individuals can purchase healthcare insurance
coverage. The federal government is to provide partial funding for the exchanges, but
will cease doing so after 2015. Should a state not wish to participate in the exchanges, it
can opt out only if it provides coverage for uninsured individuals with incomes between
133 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level, a higher income level than that
which would be applied for participating states under the Act. The only other way for a
state to avoid the Act’s requirements is to drop out of the Medicaid program, leaving
millions of persons uninsured.
41. Those states left with no practical alternative but to participate in the Act
will have to expand their Medicaid coverage to include all individuals under age 65 with
incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. The states’ coverage burdens will
increase significantly after 2016, both in actual dollars and in proportion to the
contributions of the federal government.
42. The federal government will not provide necessary funding or resources to
the states to administer the Act. Nevertheless, states will be required to provide oversight
of the newly-created insurance markets, including, inter alia, instituting regulations,
consumer protections, rate reviews, solvency and reserve fund requirements, and
premium taxes. States also must enroll all of the newly-eligible Medicaid beneficiaries
(many of whom will be subject to a penalty if they fail to enroll), coordinate enrollment
11
with the new exchanges, and implement other specified changes. The Act further
requires states to establish an office of health insurance consumer assistance or an
ombudsman program to advocate for people in the new programs.
The Act’s Impact on Florida’s Medicaid Program, as an Example
43. The Act will have an impact on all Plaintiffs and in a manner similar to its
impact on Florida, as described herein by way of example.
44. Florida is the Nation’s fourth largest state in population. Based on United
States Census Bureau statistics from 2008, Florida has 3,641,933 uninsured persons
living in the state. Of those persons, 1,259,378 are below 133 percent of the federal
poverty line, and therefore must be added to Florida’s Medicaid rolls under the Act.
45. Even before passage of the Act, the Medicaid program imposed an
overwhelming cost on Florida, consuming 26 percent of its annual budget. For fiscal
year 2009-2010 alone, Florida will spend more than $18 billion on Medicaid, servicing
more than 2.7 million persons. Florida’s Medicaid contributions and burdens, from the
implementation of its Medicaid program in 1970 to the present, have gradually increased
to the point where it would be infeasible for Florida to cease its participation in Medicaid.
46. Although the federal government currently contributes 67.64 percent of
every dollar Florida spends on Medicaid, that percentage is artificially and temporarily
raised because of federal stimulus outlays. After this year, the percentage of Florida’s
Medicaid program expenses covered by the federal government will decline, and by 2011
will reach 55.45 percent, a level that is closer to the recent average. The federal
government’s contribution will not compensate for the dramatic increase to Florida’s
12
Medicaid rolls and the correspondingly soaring costs to be borne by Florida under the
Act.
47. Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) estimates that
at least 80 percent of persons who have some form of health insurance but fall below 133
percent of the federal poverty level will drop their current plans and enroll in Medicaid,
because they are newly eligible under the Act. The federal government does not offer
any funding for these persons, because they qualified for insurance other than Medicaid
prior to passage of the Act. These persons represent a significant additional cost to
Florida under the Act.
48. The Act also makes a large new class of persons eligible for Medicaid in
Florida. Prior to passage of the Act, only certain specified low-income individuals and
families qualified for Medicaid. Moreover, the qualifying income level set by Florida
was much lower than the level of 133 percent of the federal poverty line set by the federal
government under the Act. Now, Florida also must add to its Medicaid rolls all childless
adults whose income falls below 133 percent of the federal poverty line.
49. Prior to passage of the Act, AHCA was Florida’s designated state
Medicaid agency tasked with developing and carrying out policies related to the
Medicaid program. The Act will strip away much of AHCA’s authority to set policies,
transferring that authority to the federal government, which will dictate those policies to
Florida. AHCA and the other Florida agencies will be rendered arms of the federal
government, and AHCA employees will be conscripted and forced to administer what
13
now is essentially a federal Medicaid program for which Florida must bear a substantial
cost.
50. AHCA has prepared limited projections for the fiscal impact of the Act.
The new additional costs to the state are as follows: $149,001,478 for 2014;
$431,307,547 for 2015; $484,803,557 for 2016; $938,807,336 for 2017; $993,836,882 for
2018, and $1,048,866,307 for 2019. Beyond this time frame, the costs to Florida will
continue to grow. These projections understate the Act’s adverse impact on Florida.
They do not include estimated costs to be borne by Florida to administer the Act or to
prepare for the Act’s implementation. Such costs will include hiring and training new
staff, creating new information technology infrastructures, developing an adequate
provider base, creating a scheme for accountability and quality assurance, and many other
expenses.
51. The Act effectively requires that Florida immediately begin to devote
funds and resources to implement the Act’s sweeping reforms across multiple agencies of
government. Such implementation burdens include, but are not limited to: enforcing the
Act’s immediately-effective terms, including new mandates regarding healthcare
insurance coverage; determining gaps between current resources in state government and
the Act’s requirements; evaluating infrastructure to consider how new programs and
substantial expansion of existing programs will be implemented (e.g., new agencies,
offices, etc.); developing a strategic plan and coordinating common issues across state
agencies; initiating legislative and regulatory processes, while at the same time
monitoring and engaging the substantial federal regulatory processes to ensure that
14
Florida’s interests are protected; and developing a communications structure and plan to
disseminate new information regarding changes brought about by the Act to the many
affected persons and entities (legislators, state agencies, insurers, hospitals, doctors,
community clinics, major employers, small businesses, advocacy groups, insurance
brokers, legislators, the uninsured, and Floridians generally), and to achieve such
dissemination in sufficient time for them to understand and adapt to the changes in
accordance with federal timetables, without interruption or confusion in the provision of
healthcare services.
52. In sum, while the Act infringes on Florida’s constitutional status as a
sovereign, entitled to cooperate with but not to be controlled by the federal government
under the Medicaid program, the Act also will force Florida to cover more than one
million additional persons and, in so doing, to spend billions of additional dollars, a price
it simply cannot afford to pay.
53. At the same time, like the other Plaintiffs, Florida cannot avoid the Act’s
requirements by ending its longstanding participation in the Medicaid program, thereby
leaving millions of current Medicaid recipients stranded without coverage. In effect, the
Plaintiffs’ participation under the Act cannot be avoided, despite its devastating effects.
15
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER
AND VIOLATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(Const. art. I & amend. X)
54. Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
through 53 above as though fully set forth herein.
55. Plaintiffs cannot afford the exorbitant and unfunded costs of participating
under the Act, but have no choice other than to participate.
56. The Act exceeds Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution of
the United States, and cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause, Const. art. I, §8; the
Taxing and Spending Clause, id.; or any other provision of the Constitution.
57. By effectively co-opting the Plaintiffs’ control over their budgetary
processes and legislative agendas through compelling them to assume costs they cannot
afford, and by requiring them to establish health insurance exchanges, the Act deprives
them of their sovereignty and their right to a republican form of government, in violation
of Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
58. The Act violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States, and runs afoul of the Constitution’s principle of federalism, by commandeering
the Plaintiffs and their employees as agents of the federal government’s regulatory
scheme at the states’ own cost.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
16
A. Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be in violation
of Article I of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
B. Declare Defendants to have violated the Plaintiffs’ rights as sovereigns
and protectors of the freedom, public health, and welfare of their citizens and residents,
as aforesaid;
C. Enjoin Defendants and any other agency or employee acting on behalf of
the United States from enforcing the Act against the Plaintiffs, their citizens and
residents, and any of their agencies or officials or employees, and to take such actions as
are necessary and proper to remedy their violations deriving from any such actual or
attempted enforcement; and
D. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and grant such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT TWO
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION OF
UNAPPORTIONED CAPITATION OR DIRECT TAX
(Const. art. I, §§ 2, 9)
59. Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
through 53 above as though fully set forth herein.
60. The tax penalty on uninsured persons under the Act constitutes a
capitation and a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states according to census
data, thereby injuring the sovereign interests of Plaintiffs.
61. Said tax penalty applies without regard to property, profession, or any
other circumstance, and is unrelated to any taxable event or activity. It is to be levied
17
upon persons for their failure or refusal to do anything other than to exist and reside in
the United States.
62. Said tax penalty violates article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of
the United States. By its imposition of the penalty tax, and by the resulting coercion of
many persons to enroll in Medicaid at a substantial cost to the Plaintiffs, the Act injures
their interests as sovereigns vested with exclusive authority, except to the extent
permitted to the federal government by the Constitution, to make all taxing decisions
affecting their citizens and to confer a right upon persons in their states to make
healthcare decisions without government interference. The tax penalty is
unconstitutional on its face and cannot be applied constitutionally.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
A. Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be in violation
of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States;
B. Declare Defendants to have violated the Plaintiffs’ rights as sovereigns
and protectors of the freedom, public health, and welfare of their citizens and residents,
as aforesaid;
C. Enjoin Defendants and any other agency or employee acting on behalf of
the United States from enforcing the Act against the Plaintiffs, their citizens and
residents, and any of their agencies or officials or employees, and to take such actions as
are necessary and proper to remedy their violations deriving from any such actual or
attempted enforcement; and
18
D. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and grant such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT THREE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS
HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE OR PAY TAX
PENALTY
(Const. art. I & amend. X)
63. Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
through 53 above as though fully set forth herein.
64. The Act forces citizens and residents to have healthcare coverage or pay a
tax penalty. In effect, the Act compels said persons to have healthcare coverage, whether
or not they wish to do so, or be subject to sanction. The Act thus compels persons to
perform an affirmative act or incur a penalty, simply on the basis that they exist and
reside in the United States.
65. The Act is directed to a lack of or failure to engage in activity that is
driven by the choices of individual Americans. Such inactivity by its nature cannot be
deemed to be in commerce or to have any substantial effect on commerce, whether
interstate or otherwise. As a result, the Act cannot be upheld under the Commerce
Clause, Const. art. I, § 8. The Act infringes upon Plaintiffs’ interests in protecting the
freedom, public health, and welfare of their citizens and their state fiscs, by coercing
many persons to enroll in Medicaid at a substantial cost to Plaintiffs; and denies Plaintiffs
their sovereign ability to confer rights upon their citizens and residents to make
healthcare decisions without government interference, including the decision not to
19
participate in any healthcare insurance program or scheme, in violation of the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
66. The tax penalty on uninsured persons under the Act unlawfully coerces
persons to obtain healthcare coverage, thereby injuring the Plaintiffs’ fiscs, because many
persons will be compelled to enroll in Medicaid at a substantial cost to Plaintiffs. As a
result, the Act cannot be upheld under the Taxing and Spending Clause, Const. art. I, § 8.
67. In so coercing citizens and residents to have healthcare coverage, the Act
exceeds Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution of the United States, and
cannot be upheld under any provision of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
A. Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be in violation
of Article I, section 8 of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States;
B. Declare Defendants to have violated the Plaintiffs’ rights as sovereigns
and protectors of the freedom, health, and welfare of their citizens and residents, as
aforesaid;
C. Enjoin Defendants and any other agency or employee acting on behalf of
the United States from enforcing the Act against the Plaintiffs, their citizens and
residents, and any of their agencies or officials or employees, and to take such actions as
are necessary and proper to remedy their violations deriving from any such actual or
attempted enforcement; and
20
D. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and grant such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT FOUR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(28 U.S.C. § 2201)
68. Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1
through 53 above as though fully set forth herein.
69. There is an actual controversy of sufficient immediacy and concreteness
relating to the legal rights and duties of the Plaintiffs and their legal relations with the
Defendants to warrant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
70. The harm to the Plaintiffs as a direct result of the Act is sufficiently real
and imminent to warrant the issuance of a conclusive declaratory judgment clarifying the
legal relations of the parties.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:
A. Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be in violation
of Article I of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
B. Declare Defendants to have violated the Plaintiffs’ rights as sovereigns
and protectors of the freedom, health, and welfare of their citizens and residents, as
aforesaid;
C. Enjoin Defendants and any other agency or employee acting on behalf of
the United States from enforcing the Act against the Plaintiffs, their citizens and
residents, and any of their agencies or officials or employees, and to take such actions as
21
are necessary and proper to remedy their violations deriving from any such actual or
attempted enforcement; and
D. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and grant such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
BILL MCCOLLUM
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA
HENRY McMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA;
JON BRUNING
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
NEBRASKA;
GREG ABBOTT
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS;
MARK L. SHURTLEFF
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UTAH;
JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
LOUISIANA;
TROY KING
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
ALABAMA;
MICHAEL A. COX
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MICHIGAN;
JOHN W. SUTHERS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
COLORADO;
THOMAS W. CORBETT, Jr.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
22
PENNSYLVANIA;
ROBERT M. McKENNA
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
WASHINGTON;
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IDAHO
MARTY J. JACKLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
DAKOTA
___________________________________
Of counsel: Blaine H. Winship (FBN 0356913)
David B. Rivkin, Jr. Assistant Attorney General
Lee A. Casey Joseph W. Jacquot (FBN 189715)
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Deputy Attorney General
Suite 1100 Scott D. Makar (FBN 709697)
Washington, DC 20036 Solicitor General
Telephone: (202) 861-1731 Louis F. Hubener (FBN 0140084)
Facsimile: (202) 861-1783 Timothy D. Osterhaus (FBN 0133728)
Charles B. Upton II (FBN 0037241)
Deputy Solicitors General
The Capitol, Suite PL-01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Telephone: (850) 414-3300
Facsimile: (850) 488-4872
Email: blaine.winship@myfloridalegal.com

Tyburn
03-25-2010, 12:13 AM
Thank you, Dave. And thanks for not kicking a man when he is down.


:laugh:

Your Welcome Denise. I had not realized just how bad the bill was until I read the list of what it actually does in PTMs thread.

*prays she's not being sarcastic*

:laugh:

TENNESSEAN
03-25-2010, 12:39 AM
there in lies the greatest problem of them all. I am forbidden to say more :sad:

Why are you forbidden. I would like to hear what you have to say. I may disagree but I know you are speaking how you feel not just making trouble.

Tyburn
03-25-2010, 12:54 AM
Why are you forbidden. I would like to hear what you have to say. I may disagree but I know you are speaking how you feel not just making trouble.

:laugh: Executive Orders so to speak :laugh:

perhaps we talk by PM :huh: thats permissable :)

TENNESSEAN
03-25-2010, 01:26 AM
I'm on my phone and the pm function dosnt work all the time it takes several tries to get the pm box open then it don't refresh with the rest of the forums so it says I have a new pm when I don't then when I send one it just vanishes no sign of it in the sent msg for who knows how long very flusterating.

flo
03-25-2010, 01:38 AM
I'm really so increadibly sorry this has all turned into such a nightmare for you all :sad:

Thank for saying that, Dave. For me, this bill is leading us down the road to ruin. :sad:

flo
03-25-2010, 01:39 AM
Your Welcome Denise. I had not realized just how bad the bill was until I read the list of what it actually does in PTMs thread.

*prays she's not being sarcastic*

:laugh:

:unsure-1: Ummm, er...PTM is a woman? :huh: :ashamed:

flo
03-25-2010, 01:41 AM
Or did you mean Neez?

I'm usually confused. :happydancing:

TENNESSEAN
03-25-2010, 03:21 AM
Its not the same people going to court who voted "aye" though is it :huh: I presume its their Republican counterparts...and that lone democrat from wherever it was :laugh:

Each state has federal representative in washington they are suppose to represent their region of the state to write federal laws.
Each state has state representative to represent their regions of the state writing laws for their state.

There two different groups of people and government.

the fed reps for each state passed this bill the state reps are the ones suing. Basically state governments that had no say in the bill are suing the federal government.

There are constitutional rights that each state has and the feds have no right to stick their nose in. This is how speed limits, gun laws, abortion laws to name a few are all state regulated. Those laws vary from state to state.

I can walk in a gun store buy a gun and take it
home the same day. County mike has been waiting for a permit to buy a gun for three months. That's all because of state law makers the feds have no say.

The states are suing on the grounds that this is a part of state commerce and the feds have no say in the matter.

Fact is most states already have their own forms of health care to help those who can't afford it. We have tenn care in tennessee.

My daughter is uncover able due to a heart condition. She has been denied by every major insurance company in the country. Her only choice is tenn care. It works for tennessee what right do the feds have to come in and say that's not acceptable anymore.

flo
03-25-2010, 04:47 AM
Yes, it really does get complicated. Here in the bluest of blue People's Republic of Washington, our senators and most of our congresspeople are Dems. However, our atty general is Republican and he has filed the suit for our state (much to our lousy governor's chagrin :-). It is up to the states attys general to file suit on behalf of their state, has nothing to do with the feds.

I'm very sorry to hear that your daughter has a serious illness, Tennessean. I hope she is improving and has a good outlook!

Tyburn
03-25-2010, 12:23 PM
I'm on my phone and the pm function dosnt work all the time it takes several tries to get the pm box open then it don't refresh with the rest of the forums so it says I have a new pm when I don't then when I send one it just vanishes no sign of it in the sent msg for who knows how long very flusterating.

ohh...I dont know anything about that, my phone is so old it wont connect to any internet...whenever Im on here I am either on my PC in my flat, or im around at my Parents stealing a second on their PC :laugh:

Tyburn
03-25-2010, 12:24 PM
Or did you mean Neez?

I'm usually confused. :happydancing:

:laugh: I meant Denise :laugh:

Tyburn
03-25-2010, 12:31 PM
Each state has federal representative in washington they are suppose to represent their region of the state to write federal laws.
Each state has state representative to represent their regions of the state writing laws for their state.

There two different groups of people and government.

the fed reps for each state passed this bill the state reps are the ones suing. Basically state governments that had no say in the bill are suing the federal government.

There are constitutional rights that each state has and the feds have no right to stick their nose in. This is how speed limits, gun laws, abortion laws to name a few are all state regulated. Those laws vary from state to state.

I can walk in a gun store buy a gun and take it
home the same day. County mike has been waiting for a permit to buy a gun for three months. That's all because of state law makers the feds have no say.

The states are suing on the grounds that this is a part of state commerce and the feds have no say in the matter.

Fact is most states already have their own forms of health care to help those who can't afford it. We have tenn care in tennessee.

My daughter is uncover able due to a heart condition. She has been denied by every major insurance company in the country. Her only choice is tenn care. It works for tennessee what right do the feds have to come in and say that's not acceptable anymore.

ohhh I understand.

It suprises me that the two dont have to vote completely to get something passed...especially as each representative will have its own agenda...you would have thought to pass such a bill you would need all Federal AND State representatives to vote "aye" sinse aswell as being a Federal Government Law...is it not now automatically a State Law also...and therefore, the State Representatives should have some control in what laws become part of their individual states.

Thats what confuses me, the amounts of different representatives for voting, or for a government poll, plus the two distinct different types of Government...that actually equate to Fifty Two completely different Governing bodies...Fifty Three if you count Washington DC Government as separate from the Federal Government...I think it is in some way because I remember the city had its own Government along with a Mayor as if it were a State...A district Government if one such is possible outside of a US Territorial realm...like Guarm for example

I can show you the photograph of the building if you want...or maybe I shouldnt post that incase I wasnt meant to take the picture in the first place :unsure-1:

TENNESSEAN
03-25-2010, 02:20 PM
Yes, it really does get complicated. Here in the bluest of blue People's Republic of Washington, our senators and most of our congresspeople are Dems. However, our atty general is Republican and he has filed the suit for our state (much to our lousy governor's chagrin :-). It is up to the states attys general to file suit on behalf of their state, has nothing to do with the feds.

I'm very sorry to hear that your daughter has a serious illness, Tennessean. I hope she is improving and has a good outlook!

she is 100% fine now. there is something like a 30% chance that it can come back before she is 18. the insurance companies will not accept her until she is 18. if it were to come back she would have to have a valve transplant. i heard about people that say they are unrecoverable and always thought they just couldn't or didn't want to pay the high premiums. not the case at all the insurance companies will not pick her up at any cost.

she can be insured on a group policy but my wife and i were self employed they will not cover her on a family policy.

Chuck
03-25-2010, 03:03 PM
she is 100% fine now. there is something like a 30% chance that it can come back before she is 18. the insurance companies will not accept her until she is 18. if it were to come back she would have to have a valve transplant. i heard about people that say they are unrecoverable and always thought they just couldn't or didn't want to pay the high premiums. not the case at all the insurance companies will not pick her up at any cost.

she can be insured on a group policy but my wife and i were self employed they will not cover her on a family policy.

You could take out a 1 life group policy with high deductibles and at least have her covered for hospital stays etc if you needed to. :wink:

TENNESSEAN
03-25-2010, 03:12 PM
You could take out a 1 life group policy with high deductibles and at least have her covered for hospital stays etc if you needed to. :wink:

humm, explain this 1 life group policy or post a link with info. we really tried everything. Tenn care required 3 denial letters before they would accept her i gave them 7. i went threw every scenario with each one of these insurance companies or at least they told me i did.

Play The Man
03-26-2010, 05:01 AM
:unsure-1: Ummm, er...PTM is a woman? :huh: :ashamed:

Tyburn! You were supposed to keep that a secret!:angry:

Tyburn
03-26-2010, 12:30 PM
Tyburn! You were supposed to keep that a secret!:angry:

:laugh: