Federal Judge in Lynchburg’s Ruling: Health Care Law IS Constitutional

    180
    9
    SHARE

    Another day, another ruling by a federal judge – this time Federal District Court Judge Norman K. Moon, who sits in Lynchburg – who “rejected the argument by plaintiffs around the country that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not empower Congress to require Americans to buy a commercial product like health insurance.” Judge Moon’s complete, 54-page ruling is available here. Key points in the ruling against Liberty University’s lawsuit:

    *”Plaintiffs fail to allege how any payments required under the act, whether fines, fees, taxes, or the cost of the policy, would be used to fund abortion.”

    *”Congress acted in accordance with its constitutionally delegated powers under the Commerce Clause when it passed the employer and individual coverage provisions of the Act.”

    *”The individual coverage requirement is a valid exercise of federal power.”

    *”Congress has the power to offer states the choice of regulating private activity according to federal standards or having state law preempted

    by federal regulation.”

    *”The Act explicitly states that no plan is required to cover any form of abortion services.”

    In short, Liberty’s suit is complete crap, as is Ken Kookinelli’s.  Hopefully, that case will be tossed out as well, as it richly deserves to be.

    • is because it came from the Obama administration.  Think about it: every one of the lawyers challenging the health care law has his own health insurance, so they are exempt from the individual mandate.  They never claimed they were fighting for the small segment of the population that can afford health insurance but refuses to obtain it.

      The constitutional argument has failed, as in this case.  The “slippery slope” argument (wherein we would descend into a nanny state that tells you what cars to buy and what clothes to wear) is laughable.  The argument that the law would force taxpayers to fund abortions has failed.  It really looks like Cuccinelli and his cohorts are grasping for straws.  They want to say, “Overturn the law because we hate it; and we hate it because it was successfully passed by Democrats.”  But you can’t use that argument in court, so they look for something else.

    • Cool_Arrow

      As an FYI guys the best thing to do with the teabaggers who continue to insist that it is Unconstitutional is 2 parts:

      1) Ask them how many Amendments there are to the Constitution. Most are going to be very hard pressed to correctly respond with 27. It brings me much pleasure to hear that they don’t know exactly how many there are. So when they fail ask them if they are such Constitutional experts why can’t they name the number of basic Amendments?

      2)Now if they say that there are 27 ask them which Amendment is being violated. Again you are going to be very hard pressed to get a right answer. If somehow they have succeeded thus far ask them why the government is able to take a piece of everyone’s check for Social Security and Medicare/Medicade and after those passed exactly what else did the government “force” people to do against their own will. I guarantee a very high success rate with these questions.

      It is quite fun and enjoyable. Pass it on!

    • Once again, I call on the Attorney General to invest his time and resources and those of the numerous attorneys in his office on issues of immediate import to Virginians. Virginians need his help with consumer fraud, the war on drugs, payday lending and other issues that truly matter in Virginians’ lives.