Tuesday, March 23, 2010
|Lawsuit filed by 13 Attorneys General|
"The federal health care legislation signed today violates the United States Constitution and unconstitutionally infringes upon Texans' individual liberties," Attorney General Abbott said. "No public policy goal--no matter how important or well-intentioned--can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states have filed a legal challenge seeking judgment from the courts that the federal health care take over is unconstitutional."
The thirteen-state coalition, which includes Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, and Idaho, filed its legal challenge in the Federal District Court in the Northern District of Florida. It was filed shortly after President Barack Obama signed the bill into law. The legal action specifically challenges the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and names the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury and Labor as defendants because those federal agencies are charged with implementing the Act's constitutionally impermissible provisions.
Encroachment on Individual Liberties
According to the states' legal action, the federal health care bill violates both Article I and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "The Act represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals living in the Plaintiffs' respective states, by mandating that all citizens and legal residents of the United States have qualifying healthcare coverage or pay a tax penalty. The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying healthcare coverage. By imposing such a mandate, the Act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution."
Explaining why the individual mandate is unconstitutional, Attorney General Abbott said: "Our nation's founding fathers had the wisdom to limit the federal government's authority by specifically enumerating the powers given to Congress. Today, the federal government is attempting an unconstitutional power-grab-and relying upon Congress' authority to regulate Commerce to justify their unprecedented overreach. If there are to be any limitations on the federal government then 'Commerce' cannot be twisted to cover every possible human activity under the sun-including mere human existence. The act of doing absolutely nothing does not constitute an act of commerce, and today's legal challenge reflects the states' attempt to preserve the individual liberties that were intended by our founders and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."
Removes States' Discretion
The states also charge that the Act "converts what had been a voluntary federal-state partnership into a compulsory top-down federal program." As a result, the Act effectively removes the states' discretion and constitutes a "derogation of the core constitutional principle of federalism upon which this Nation was founded...[and] exceeds the powers of the United States and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution."
Unprecedented Encroachment on State Sovereignty
Further, the multi-state lawsuit explains that the federal health care law "represents an unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" by imposing new federal Medicaid enrollment standards. According to the Texas Health & Human Services Commission, the Act will double the number of Medicaid recipients and therefore force the Texas taxpayers to spend an additional $24.3 billion on Medicaid over a 10-year period. In addition to dramatic spending increases, the new law will shift substantial administrative costs to the states and therefore requires that state employees and agencies devote considerable time and resources to implementing the Act. The lawsuit also cites "several unfunded mandates that will cost state governments significantly."
Finally, the states allege that the Act imposes an unconstitutional tax on the American people. According to the states' legal action, "the tax penalty required under the Act, which must be paid by uninsured citizens and residents, constitutes an unlawful capitation or direct tax, in violation of Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution of the United States."