Health Care Lawsuit by state Attorneys General (precedents)?

PREMISE

Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government on Tuesday,

claiming that the health care overhaul bill is unconstitutional because

"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."

(i)

I was under the impression that it is the fed which has

made it mandatory to get auto insurance.

(THIS BENEFITS OTHERS.)

(ii)

The fed forces you to pay into the Social Security system

even if you feel that you do not need to,

(THIS BENEFITS YOU.)

(iii)

The fed forces you to pay taxes.

(THIS BENEFITS YOU AND OTHERS.)

QUESTION

With the states having historically accepted such precedents doesn’t that make it

difficult for the states to now claim that the fed doesn’t have such authority?

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    1) Auto insurance is mandated by each state government

    2) Social security is a tax, explicitly allowed by the constitution

    3) Again, taxes are explicitly allowed by the constitution

    Their position is tenuous at best, especially since the bill does not literally force people to buy insurance. It institutes a tax that applies to people without insurance, which is clearly and unequivocally allowed by the constitution.

  • Mutt
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    (i) The STATES mandate this, but only if you own a car that you will drive on public roads. If you own a car that is in storage and not driven, you are not required to insure it.

    (ii) & (iii) These are TAXES, which are constitutional, and proven to be in court countless number of times. This bill is now facing constitutional tests.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.