AOL, of all places, has an excellent set of essays by two attorneys general, one participating in the lawsuit claiming that a federal insurance...
Mandating that every American obtain an approved form of health insurance does not regulate commercial or economic activities of any kind. Rather, it imposes an affirmative obligation on each individual, regardless of any activity in which he or she engages. This is the very kind of legislative authority that the Constitution reserves to the states alone. In other words, Congress has gone out of bounds and usurped state authority, making decisions about the delivery and consumption of health care services that should be made by the states or by individuals and families for themselves.Read McCollum's full argument here.From Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway:
The arguments being espoused by some Republicans against the health care bill would jeopardize the entire Social Security system, including the monthly benefit checks that nearly 845,000 senior citizens and disabled people in Kentucky depend on for their basic needs. Congress clearly has the explicit constitutional authority to enact measures for the "general welfare."Read Conway's full argument here.The conventional wisdom is that the lawsuit has a small but not negligible chance of succeeding. I wonder how much of the bill is dependent on the mandate. If this lawsuit succeeds, how much of the bill does it dismantle? And how much of the infrastructure of health-care reform will already be in place by the time it wends it way through the courts. Where do you stand on the health-care-reform lawsuit?Via The Corner.
Share on Facebook
