- Is Nullification Constitutional? (reason.com)
- Second Civil War News: Missouri Voters To Have Say On Obamacare (patdollard.com)
- Nullification! (lewrockwell.com)
- In the Mail: Nullification (collectedmiscellany.com)
- AZ immigration law stopped – for now. (lawafterthebar.wordpress.com)
- How would SCOTUS rule on S1070? (lawafterthebar.wordpress.com)
- Missouri Voters Reject Individual Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance (reason.com)
I’ve written before about the constitutional challenges to the Obama healthcare reforms. As reported over at Paper Chase
The Obama administration is also facing health care lawsuits in Virginia and Florida, filed by numerous state attorneys general. Last month, Georgia joined 18 other states [JURIST report] in a lawsuit [complaint, PDF] filed [JURIST report] in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida [official website]. The 18 other states involved in the suit are Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada, and Arizona. Seven more states are set to join the lawsuit [WP report] Friday. Meanwhile, Virginia has filed a separate lawsuit after that state’s legislature passed a bill barring mandatory individual health coverage [JURIST report].
Well, the first response to any of the lawsuits has finally been filed. In response to a suit iby the Thomas More Law Center, the Obama Administration filed a brief in the Eastern District of Michigan asserting that the law was well within the powers of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, an unsurprising argument. Among other things:
Congress determined that the health care system in the United States is in crisis, spawning public expense and private tragedy. After decades of failed attempts, Congress enacted comprehensive health care reform to deal with this overwhelming national problem. The minimum coverage provision is vital to that comprehensive scheme. Enjoining it would thwart this reform and reignite the crisis that the elected branches of government acted to forestall.
This sounds like the argument to uphold the government’s argument is that regardless of constitutionality, upholding the law is crucial to holding off the crisis that the law is intended to solve. OR, the ends justify the means, so don’t mess with the ends.
Do they? Your take?
(via Paper Chase)