« I like my Attorney General | Main | What We Really Can't Afford Is This Kind Of Thinking »

Federal judge allows Virginia's ObamaCare challenge to go forward

When Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress passed ObamaCare, it was not only done in the face of the vociferous outrage of the American people, but its passage also made purchasing a product or service a requirement for living in the United States.

Almost immediately after Barack Obama signed ObamaCare into law, which was made possible only with Bart Stupak betraying his constituents, Virginia filed its challenge in federal court.

That initial filing was countered with the federal government filing a motion to dismiss. Today, however, the federal judge in Virginia ruled on the motion to dismiss. He denied it. So the state's case against the federal government proceeds.

While it is tempting to start celebrating U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson's decision in the streets, the facts of the case have not yet been argued in court. It is nonetheless encouraging that Judge Hudson believed that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's argument that the law was an extraordinary and aggressive expansion of federal power over the states has merit and should be argued in court.

From Fox News:

The state of Virginia can continue its lawsuit to stop the nation's new health care law from taking effect, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said he is allowing the suit against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it's constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product.

"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision.

"Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side's position, this court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action," he wrote.

The decision is a small step, but in no way a minor matter to opponents of the health care bill rejected by all congressional Republicans but signed into law by President Obama earlier this year.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli reacted to the judge's decision:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sees significance in an observation by Judge Hudson, noting that "the Court recognized that the federal health care law and its associated penalty were literally unprecedented," Cuccinelli said.

"Specifically, the Court wrote that '[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.'"

The Virginia AG added that "this lawsuit is not about health care, it's about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land - the Constitution."

For that reason, he said, "the government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause."

That last sentence sums up ObamaCare perfectly. If the Democrats' new "require and regulate" tactic is allowed to stand, it will be used in other areas of the economy to regulate the American people back to the stone age, reducing everyone to nothing more than serfs who exist for the sole purpose of sustaining the government's power over them.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39761.

Comments (7)

Well Barry has made himself... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Well Barry has made himself very clear on this. It's not a tax, but it is a tax. So that should straighten things out.

"reducing everyone to no... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"reducing everyone to nothing more than serfs who exist for the sole purpose of sustaining the government's power over them."

You say that like you think it's a bad thing, Kim. From comments by artfldgr at
neo-neocon - Blog Archive- Still not getting it about Obama (apologies for the long excerpt, bolded/italiced are my emphasis...)

i have explained that such people see power differently and they cant feel it unless they force you to do things. applying what i keep explaining is why no one gets it.
to a normal person like george washington, or even a kid learning karate with honor, power is an internal facet, something that you have regardless of whether you exercise it. so a mother has power over her baby in utero, she doesnt ahve to act on that power to realize she has it or know it.
but these people don't see power this way. to them power is the ability to force or compel others to do what you want and they don't want.
doing what they don't want is key.
this is the key difference between power as a tool, and power for power. the difference between using a knife for dinner and having picarism.
the normal persons use tools for tools.
the abnormal persons use tools to their own ends.
so a normal person using a knife uses it as a tool, puts it away, and that's it. a person with picarism is looking for more opportunities to cut things. (like a surgeon i met once).
the tool for the tools sake becomes a person wishing to use the tool as they get their jollies from using the tool itself. (like looners get jollies from the fetish around balloons).
this is why these states are so brutal... mao knows he had a lot more power than the king of france... why? he was able to subject his people to more horrible acts and they could not rebel.
the sexual sadist is one of the easier ways to see this. in our society, sexual sadism can take two categories. the people who play at it, as a sexual game and everyone to some degree knows whats going on... and the person who is a REAL sexual sadist.
the latter, could get their jollies off all they want within the framework of all these sexual fringe groups and aware people. they could find masochists who want to be mistreated 24/7.
why dont they? because it goes back to the old joke. what does a real sadist say to a masochist that begs them to hit them? no!
so real sexual sadists, as well as real power freaks, have one slightly different note to them. they need the other person to not want whats being done. so the people within such communities that play with this stuff, are not like the real ones. (and they tend not to mix which is why its safer to be in community than out on your own - in community, its play, out of community, its roulette).
so real sexual sadists, as well as real power freaks, have one slightly different note to them. they need the other person to not want whats being done. so the people within such communities that play with this stuff, are not like the real ones. (and they tend not to mix which is why its safer to be in community than out on your own - in community, its play, out of community, its roulette).
so if you read about these people you will find they share a common thing in which they want the kind of power in which they can compel people against their will.
and power over one person in private is not enough.
as the mass murderer is slightly different than the criminal sadist psychopath... so are these.
they want to make thousands cry in pain, suffer, plead with them to make their lives better.
they want to feel the power...
and not understanding this difference in people, in a culture that says there arent any (hiding them), means what when such gets the reigns of power?
it means that they regret not having Maos opportunity to exterminate and torture so many and not lose their farm of victims.
Lousy capitalization aside - it points out that the folks in power screwing with/screwing up the economy aren't doing it to make things better - it's to make them worse so people WILL hurt, and then they can be heroic and 'save' them.

Consider - things were consistently labeled terrible from 2001 to 2006 - and compared to now they were darn near golden years. Then the Dems got control and the economy REALLY hit the shitter. And, of course, with Hopey-Changey Obama, you had the promise that HE was going to make everything BETTER.

$3 tril in deficit spending in two years, with little to show for it... Guess it depends on what you call 'better'.

So let's see - unemployment was terrible under Bush at 5-5.5% And now we're at between 9.5 and 17% (considering how it's calculated) - the economy is stagnating, new taxes are threatened, laws are being actively ignored - it seems like everything's being done to make sure things are as miserable as possible for a maximum of people.

If we were in the hands of political sadists, trying to hide what they were as long as possible, what would be done differently?

Look for the undynamic duo ... (Below threshold)
914:

Look for the undynamic duo of Hussein/Holder to announce a lawsuit to challenge the impending challenge as it profile's the unwilling against their better good.


It is important not only to... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

It is important not only to win the case in District Court, but also where it is won.

Virginia is in the 4th Federal Circuit, and that Court of Appeals is generally one of the more dependably conservative ones. If the District Court rules against Obama and the 4th Circuit affirms, it will make it easy for the SCOTUS to do the same, although it is hard to find 5 votes for the Obama position - especially after he ticked off Mr. Justice Kennedy.

"reducing everyone to nothi... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

"reducing everyone to nothing more than serfs who exist for the sole purpose of sustaining the government's power over them."

As I recall we went to war once upon a time over much less.

I don't know where this wil... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I don't know where this will go but I am elated at Judge Hudson's ruling. I am aware this is a very small positive step, but I feel this is an extremely crucial case for our country and its outcome will determine how intrusive/abusive the federal government can become in our lives forever, basically. The continued enactment of the progressive agenda is so dependent on the means used to pass Obamacare. Like Mr Addison I hope this case makes it to the Supreme Court. Obama showed his arrogance when he so publically and inappropriately criticized the "captive" Supreme Court during his SOTU speech. Pelosi wanted to pass Obamacare to see what was in it. For the clueless, they had to elect Obama to see what he is really like. I see a pattern here of how the liberals want to run the United States.

They rammed this monstrosit... (Below threshold)
Stan:

They rammed this monstrosity down our throats. Well we can just ram it right back down theirs. This is a first good step. Now if Missouri passes their referendum on the banning of paying for this boondoggle, it will put another nail in the coffin that is slowly being made for ObamaCare.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy