Breaking: 13 States Sue Federal Government to Stop Unconstitutional Obamacare …Update: Missouri Becomes #14

FIRED UP! READY TO GO!
13 states sued the federal government this morning after President Barack Obama signed his Obamacare bill into law.
The AP reported:

Republican attorneys general from 13 states are suing the federal government to stop the massive health care overhaul, claiming it’s unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was filed immediately after President Barack Obama signed the overhaul bill Tuesday. It names the U.S. departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is taking the lead in the lawsuit. Attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana, Idaho, Washington and Colorado are joining in. Other GOP attorneys general may join the lawsuit later or sue separately.

Bretibart has more:

The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the bill the House passed Sunday night.

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit says.

Yeah, that Barack Obama… He sure is a uniter.

UPDATE: Missouri becomes #14.

UPDATE: Carol added this–

I just heard two legal analysts on Fox say that they both didn’t think that the states’ law suits would prevail because the government (cleverly) designated the IRS as the enforcement agency of the bill, that it could thereby be construed as a “tax” and the government has the right to levy taxes for the general welfare. They do…but since when is the government mandating that consumers buy insurance from private insurance companies considered a “tax”? If they had managed to pass a public option they might have a weak point but, they cannot claim that that the mandate is a “tax” if the product of that mandate is a purchase from a private insurance supplier. This is simply NOT constitutional!! It is the “penalty” alone which could be considered a tax, and that revenue would wind up in the treasury where taxes belong. Am I right about this? It makes perfect sense to me but I am not a lawyer.

So in essence, the tax argument would only be valid about the penalty, not the mandate. So their argument would be reduced to we will “tax” you if you don’t buy insurance from a private insurer, and the choices are extremely limited due to the consumer being forbidden to cross state lines to purchase insurance. Theoretically, this could be a government sponsorship of a monopoly. I also bring to your attention that the IRS is an agency outside the judicial system and therefore the burden of proof would be on the taxpayer and not on the government and thus is a grossly unfair system and the taxpayer will have almost non-existent recourse against the government. (i.e. the government can put a tax lien on you if you do not comply and you have to prove you are innocent not the government has to prove you’re guilty. If you have a business, the government could conceivably shut you down until you comply.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning