Utah is one of 10 conservative states to challenge the health care bill by preparing a lawsuit against the federal government based on at least two points of the Constitution of the United States 1) Health Care Bill gives preferential treatment to the state of Nebraska which violates the 5th and 14th amendments 2) Requires every American to acquire health insurance which exceeds Congress’ enumerated powers. The other 9 conservative states are Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.
UTAH PATRICK HENRY CAUCUS UNANINMOUSLY SUPPORTS A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO STOP THE FEDERAL HEALTH CARE BILL
Leading state sovereignty caucus strongly opposes the federal health care bill and supports lawsuits based on two violations of the U.S. Constitution.
The Patrick Henry Caucus adopted a unanimous position Wednesday, December 23, 2009, to oppose the Health Care Reform Bills, and to support a lawsuit against the federal government in order to stop the national health care bill from becoming law.
Calling the law unconstitutional, The Patrick Henry Caucus, which is comprised of legislators from both the Utah House of Representatives and the Utah Senate, vows to fight the federal law on multiple fronts.
The Patrick Henry Caucus has an opt-out provision drafted and ready for presentation to the Utah Legislature next month. The opt-out would make it illegal for Utah agencies to implement any portion of the new federal law. The Caucus is calling on the State of Utah to join in with other States and take the lead on filing a lawsuit to stop the bill, should it receive final approval.
The Caucus believes the law is unconstitutional in at least two respects. First, the law unfairly gives preferential treatment to residents of Nebraska as a result of efforts by Senate Democrats to court the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. The Caucus believes that this preferential treatment violates principles of due process and equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Second, the law amounts to an excess of Congress’s enumerated powers inasmuch as it requires every American to acquire health insurance. This legislation marks the first time in history that Congress has required every single American to purchase a particular good or service, and cannot be reconciled with the notion that Congress possesses only those limited powers granted by the Constitution.
The Patrick Henry Caucus calls on the leaders from all States to join in the effort to file a lawsuit against the federal government in order to stop this wrongheaded piece of legislation. We must not allow Congress to commandeer one sixth of our nation’s fragile economy while simultaneously undermining the authority of the States.
God Bless,
Representative Carl Wimmer
The Patrick Henry Caucus
Co-Founder
The Wall Street Journal had an article written by Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, Washington D.C.-based attorneys, served in the Department of Justice during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations questioning the constitutionality of the health care bill,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416623109362480.html It is an interesting article and well worth reading in full and a few quotes included here to pique your interest.
“As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers: “[I]n the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.” Congress, in other words, cannot regulate simply because it sees a problem to be fixed. Federal law must be grounded in one of the specific grants of authority found in the Constitution.
These are mostly found in Article I, Section 8, which among other things gives Congress the power to tax, borrow and spend money, raise and support armies, declare war, establish post offices and regulate commerce. It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system.
Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a “tax” rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus’s (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an “excise tax” of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.
But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a “tax” that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’s authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by “taxing” anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables. This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution’s Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.”
