Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett Joins 12 States Filing Lawsuits Against Health Care Mandate

Through its Republican Attorney General, Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania has joined 12 other states in filing a lawsuit against the health care bill signed by President Obama Tuesday. Not all of the Attorneys General who filed the lawsuit are Republicans, but most are, not surprising in light of the fact that not a single Republican House member voted for the bill.

Many state office holders believed before the bill was passed that the "individual mandate," requiring everyone to buy insurance was unconstitutional, a violation of the 10^th Amendment. Tom Corbett's opposition to the bill is very simple, and can be seen on his Pennsylvania government Web site saying that "Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enact this requirement."

Corbett is a formidable attorney and frames his opposition in that simple statement.

The Constitution, particularly the 10^th Amendment, has been interpreted to mean that the federal government cannot usurp authorities not specifically granted to it. The 10^th Amendment was designed to prevent federal tyranny and to preserve the rights of the states and of the individual.

Nowhere in the 10th Amendment is Congress given the authority to order a person to buy anything-let alone health insurance. Will it try next order people to buy a gym membership, quit smoking, quit drinking, and keep their weight under an arbitrary 300 pounds? The president himself would only meet that last requirement.

The individual mandate means that government, already too large and intrusive, can now create another dominion of legal slavery. The IRS will monitor and enforce the health care "mandate." It's not a relevant argument that the fines will be levied at a future date when people are thoroughly whipped into submission. The important thing is that the 10^th Amendment does not grant this right to Nancy Pelosi, the President, nor to Democrats in Congress.

People who don't understand the loss of liberty presented by this intrusion shouldn't worry about a ruling against the partly illegal health care bill.

The individual mandate will simply be stripped out, as it should be. Perhaps it will be replaced by medical tort reform, something within the authority of the Congress, or restoration of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, or the ability to buy health insurance across state lines.

It will take time to move this lawsuit through the federal courts, and through the appellate courts, if necessary. However, Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett points out on his Web site that there are two relatively recent Supreme Court rulings which ruled that "Congress cannot regulate non-commercial activities in United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000). It's likely that the 12 states filing have picked the right precedent and a federal court jurisdiction which respects the Constitution.

Although the 10^th Amendment is one of the 10 precepts of the Bill of Rights, it is the "commerce clause" that figures in this case. While it is not clear (little of the bill is clear, in fact, except taxation) that the law just signed directly orders the states to enforce the new health care bill, states like Massachusetts and even Pennsylvania have legal insurance provisions which will become redundant and ultimately add to their expenses.

I believe the states will prevail in this pending lawsuit, filed in the Northern District Federal Court of Florida. There is the 10^th Amendment itself which states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You've got to appreciate that last phrase-to the people. Judging by the majority of people opposed to the health care bill, passed in such an embarrassed way by "reconciliation," with most of its cowardly provisions (but not its taxes) not going into effect until the next president is in office, I won't be the only one of "the people" supporting the lawsuit protections.

Legal analyst, Mike Hall, recently published an article titled "Is it Constitutional to Mandate Health Insurance?" for the Seton Hall School of Law. Lest media talking heads or others brand the strong desire for individual liberty to be "right-wing" political blather, let me quote Mr. Hall:

"Under both liberal and conservative jurisprudence, the Constitution protects individual autonomy strongly only when "fundamental rights" are involved."

Sources:

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=5152

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/08/25/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance/