• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« KBR Ends Supreme Court Appeal in Rape Case | Main | Patterns Emerge from Lawyer Layoffs »

March 23, 2010



I find it interesting yet mostly rude to read assertions of lost 'rights' or taken 'freedoms'. Most of you ignore the sad fact that many Americans simply can't afford health insurance. Many who can are under-insured and do not receive proper care at no fault of their own. So to speak of 'rights' in my opinion should be focused on those who do NOT have the right to proper health care. They CANNOT chose their health insurance. I wish for once that some of you will stop 'demonizing' millions of Americans in an attempt to make a political point.


It appears that many of you cannot see the forest for the trees. In the tumult of the legal opinions and theory presented, the major consideration is overlooked: name one service that the Gov. provides that isn't unduly expensive and already in trouble. The logistics required to do what they are doing costs far more in paying Govt. wages, than the benefits themselves cost or or can justify. It just costs way to much to administer it to justify the expense of administering it. Think cost/benefit. Figuratively, why pay two or more Govt. workers to serve one citizen, and poorly at that. Soon, we will all have to have Govt. jobs to have any job at all. Who's going to do the real work that the US was built on? Pamela is spot on. Universal Healthcare is a bold grab at a cash cow, designed to provide milk to an oversized Govt., by milking the US workingperson. The Govt. itself will reep the greatest reward.


Pamela: As a fellow Texas attorney, I'm embarrased by your assertion that the Supremacy Clause controls - the Supremacy Clause does not, and has never been interpreted to, grant any authority to make law; it merely controls whether a federal law, otherwise valid under a constitutional grant of authority, preempts a conflicting state law.

Ken Lowndes

"Imagine no federal government, it's easy if you try. No taxes above us, above us only sky. No taxes below us, only the Right to Liberty and to try. I hope someday you'll join us, and the US of A will be as one."


And as far as states Denying Rights Given by the FEDS, they DO NOT GIVE Rights in the US. They give money to their Buddies, as Corrupt as Government has become, but WE have the Rights and They've Taken them from us b/c we're too stupid to say NO.
Our rights come from God and the Constitution. The Founding Fathers Claimed those rights For Us into Perpetuity, as long as WE Enforce that Costitution.... God, Read some History here, get Educated and stop talking about the Backwards perception that can't be farther from the truth!


Oh, Rachel. The lawsuits do Not seek to Take any Rights From the People. Rather, they seek to RETURN them their Rights, among them the Right to Choose their insurance, and indeed to choose Whether or Not they Want Any insurance.
You look at it as a child, where money is simply provided from mom's purse. HOW does that money Get there? Mom, Dad, Someone has to PAY for this... So there is no "Right to free healthcare - and by the way, WHEN did you hear ANYONE in Authority Say it was FREE?" No, Government Takes it Over but it is Far from FREE and even if Gov't "gives us" something, A GROUP of TAXPAYERS Gave them the Money to Fritter away in some Stupid fashion, for them to Have anything to "give" to the people whose Rights they've Taken away by Taking Over healthcare but it's NOT healthcare, it's about CONTROL. They're going to Lojack Rachel's behind, along with Everyone in the US's persons, children and all the rest. You Really should READ George Orwell's 1984 B/c This is IT, that's what is happening here.

Charles Knull

I agree with Eric. I hope none of these comments are by lawyers. This complaint is a political statement by a bunch of elected attorney generals of what party I can only surmise. What will happen when the people in these states realize what they are saying they want to do to them?

John Herbison

Among the contentions in the complaint in the lawsuit is that "The Act is directed to a lack of or failure to engage in activity that is driven by the choices of individual Americans. Such inactivity by its nature cannot be deemed to be in commerce or to have any substantial effect on commerce, whether interstate or otherwise. As a result, the Act cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause, Const. art. I, § 8."

Gee, Willikers!! A lack of or failure to engage in activity that is driven by the choices of individual Americans!! If this is upheld, what is next? You dont suppose that Congress might require individual American innkeepers--who otherwise would not choose to do so--to rent rooms to Negroes, do you?

As Barney Fife famously said, "We've got to nip THIS in the BUD!"

Jim Rogers

The mandate in the healthcare legislation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance is without a direct precedent in federal law. There are, however, similar mandates in federal law -- Social Security, Medicare, income taxes, just to name a few. The more interesting question is whether the current Supreme Court, which has already signaled an appetite for judicial activism, will uphold the states' challenges. By the time these cases get that far down the road, the American people may very well have grown quite fond of the raft of new benefits this legislation brings. And if that's the case, will the High Court be willing to bust the bubble?


The whole basis of the United States Constitution is freedom from Government. Be it right or wrong health care is not a fundamental right and therefore people are not entitled to to it.

The State consitutions are entirely different as State's, like mine, California, does grant rights, like the right to privacy. Thus I believe a very strong argument can be made before the High Court which has revitalized the 10th Amendment in the past decade that this is a state right's issue, and the current legislation violates the 10th Amendment.


A 'Right' is given by God (excuse me for being 'politically incorrect') not by the state or federal Government. Governments may or may not recognize and knowledge God's given Rights as given to the People. Furthermore, it is 'We the People' who create a (political) Government... it is not a Government that creates a People... except in B.O.'s warped mind. (The united States of America did not write the Constitution, People did... so as to define the limits of what a government can and cannot do... to the consent of the governed.


It is quite clear that no one posting comments here has a clue about the Constitutional arguments and ramifications are involved in this lawsuit.

If any of you actually went to law school and passed the bar exam, please post your name and the firm for which you work alongside your name. That way those of us who need outside counsel who REMEMBER what they learned in law school can avoid using you or your firms.


Driving a car is a privilege, not a "right". If you want the privilege, the State can require you to purchase insurance to cover someone who is injured while you are exercising your privilege.


I am required to buy liability insurance for my car - don't I have a "right" to go commando, and should I be calling a lawyer? can I get treble damages for those premiums I have been shelling out?


Yes - the "dustbin of history" - exactly where these lawsuits belong!


You misunderstand. The people have all the rights. The US Constitution provides that the Federal Government, and the States, only have the authority granted to the government by the people. This is what differentiates us (or maybe, used to differentiate us) from other governments, where the government has all the rights, and the people only have the rights the government gives the people.
That said, the issue now is whether the Federal Government has the right to force the States, and the people of the States, to purchase insurance or pay a penalty.


Rachel is right -- the lawsuit is baseless. Of course, the states that have filed the lawsuit are the ones that typically deny the Supremacy Clause. I am a Texas attorney, but between the school textbook issue and this laughable lawsuit, I am embarassed by the behavior of Texas governmental units.


Since this bill takes away rights by mandating people buy a product (insurance), I beg to disagree about your dustbin of history comment. This is dramatic overreaching by liberals in Washington who want control. What better way to control the populace than through their health.
As one former President put it: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Gerald Ford, Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)


It's my understanding that the states can't deny their citizens rights given them by the federal government. I'm not sure where they think this lawsuit is going to go - besides the dustbin of history.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad