Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law’s requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled for the state’s claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

Hudson’s eagerly awaited decision invalidates the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a federal fine. Hudson’s decision is the first striking down part of the controversial legislation.

“It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue — it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance,” wrote Hudson who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush. “An enactment that exceeds the power of Congress to adopt adversely affects everyone in every application.”

The Obama administration is likely to appeal Monday’s ruling to the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. It is widely expected that no matter the outcome before that court, the case will ultimately go before the Supreme Court, perhaps by this time next year.

In his ruling, Hudson wrote that he is severing that portion of the law, known as Section 1501, but is not granting an injunction against the entire law.

But Section 1501 is the portion of the law that collects most of the money that is supposed to flow into the system from millions of additional participants. Without it, the law’s execution could be severely compromised and could rock the foundation of other provisions in the legislation.

The lawsuit is just one of nearly two dozen challenges filed in federal courts across the country. Another high-profile suit filed in Florida and joined by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses will go before Judge Roger Vinson on Thursday.

While the individual mandate to buy insurance is just one part of Obamacare, it is definitely a crucial aspect to it, since the requirement that everyone be part of it is what ensures a sufficiently diversified risk pool.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law’s implementation, noting that its two major provisions—the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets—don’t take effect until 2014.

The central issue in Virginia’s lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government’s reach.

The central issue in Virginia’s lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government’s authority under the Commerce Clause.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum lawsuit against Obamacare can proceed says Florida judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola today allowed portions of the claims by 20 states to go forward, as he forecast he would after a day of oral arguments last month. The requirement to purchase health insurance is “simply without prior precedent,” Vinson wrote, allowing the suit to proceed.

“People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it,” Vinson wrote in the 65-page decision. “Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized.”

Vinson previously scheduled arguments for Dec. 16 on whether the law, signed by Obama in March, is constitutional.

The judge threw out Florida’s claims that the law interferes with the state’s sovereignty as an employer and that the individual mandate violated the right to due process of law.

The focus of efforts to undo what the administration considers a key legislative achievement now shifts to Richmond, Virginia, where a similar lawsuit by the state survived a bid for dismissal in April. A judge there scheduled an Oct. 18 hearing on the law’s constitutionality.

The states contend that the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance exceeds the constitutional power of Congress.

Government’s Argument

The government counters that the mandate is covered by its authority to regulate interstate commerce, since billions of dollars a year in unpaid medical bills are absorbed by the market.

Joining Florida in the suit were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. The National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business lobbying group, also joined.

The Florida and Virginia suits were filed within minutes of Obama’s signing the legislation.

Besides its effect on individuals, the legislation puts an unconstitutional burden on state budgets by expanding Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, the states say.

Defining Activity

In a Sept. 14 hearing, Vinson questioned whether people who don’t buy health insurance can be considered actively participating in commerce and taxed for it. The U.S. previously claimed that the possibility of being injured and unable to pay medical bills is enough to draw a link between commerce and taxation.

“They are attempting to take inactivity and are making it activity,” said Randy Barnett, a constitutional-law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center said in an interview before the ruling. “The question of whether something is activity, and you don’t make inactivity into activity by saying is has an effect.”

The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

Stephen Colbert mocks immigration problem after being invited by congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, to speak to the Subcommittee on Immigration Citizenship and Border Security.

Lofgren compared Colbert to celebrity humanitarians such as Angelina Jolie and Bono, but when Colbert opened his mouth to speak, that comparison was hardly the case. Instead Stephen Colbert went on to make a mockery of immigration with his obnoxious jokes. He showed disrespect to not only the migrant workers, but the American people and Congress.

Before Colbert spoke, Lofgren admonished the attendees to refrain from making any “manifestation of approval or disapproval of these proceedings or any other disruptive actions.” She went on to say, “If necessary, the Capitol Police are here to remove anyone who disrupts the hearing.”

WATCH VIDEO

Shame on congresswoman, Zoey Lofgren, for inviting, comedian Stephen Colbert, to make a mockery of our system. This is hardly the kind of attention that America needs. It is simply not constructive and worse than a mere waste of time. It didn’t accomplish anything constructive and quite honestly was embarrassing.

Related searches:
Immigration Lawyer

Senate confirms Elana Kagan 63-37 as Supreme Court Justice.

Kagan, Obama’s solicitor general and the former dean of Harvard Law School, will join the high court after its summer recess ends later this year, replacing retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, 90. As expected, the 63-37 vote confirming Kagan, who also served in the Clinton administration, was largely along party lines, with just five Republicans voting with Democrats to confirm her – and one Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), voting no.

Full Story: Politico

PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m.

The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status.

The volume of the protests will likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona — the busiest illegal gateway into the country — to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law),” Bolton ruled. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.

The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.

Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

Brewer’s lawyers said Arizona shouldn’t have to suffer from America’s broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.

President Bill Clinton’s library in Little Rock, Ark., released about 42,000 pages of documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which currently is considering the Kagan nomination.

The documents came primarily from her 1995-96 work in the White House counsel’s office. It’s the second collection released with one more planned before confirmation hearings commence later this month.

One religious-freedom issue included Kagan’s role in drafting an executive order in a much-debated case regarding limits on federal employees talking about religion or displaying religious items in the workplace.

Another case concerned the government requiring a landlord to rent an apartment to an unwed couple, which violated the landlord’s religious beliefs. Read New York Times Story

Source: NewsMax; NY Times

Helen Thomas forced to retire after showing true colors towards Israel

“Helen Thomas announced Monday that she is retiring, effective immediately,” a Hearst Newspapers statement said. “Her decision came after her controversial comments about Israel and the Palestinians were captured on videotape and widely disseminated on the Internet.”

The decision to retire came as Thomas faced rebuke from nearly every corner after video of her remarks during an interview with RabbiLive.com’s Rabbi David Nesenoff emerged online late last week.

Watch Video of Helen Thomas Comments on Jews

“Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible,” Gibbs said during the Monday briefing, adding that Thomas’s remarks “do not reflect certainly most of the people here and certainly not those of the administration.” Thomas did not attend Monday’s briefing and journalists, perhaps sensing the closing of an era, were spotted taking pictures of Thomas’ empty front row.

Thomas, who transitioned from reporter to columnist in 2000 but kept her front-row seat at White House briefings, had come under fire for her statement that Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine” and that Jews in Israeli should return to Germany, Poland, or the US.

Thomas apologized for the comments, saying:

“I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

The White House Monday called Thomas’ remarks “offensive and reprehensible.”

“Helen Thomas’ comments were indefensible and the White House Correspondents Association board firmly dissociates itself from them,” the WHCA said in a statement. “Many in our profession who have known Helen for years were saddened by the comments, which were especially unfortunate in light of her role as a trail blazer on the White House beat.”

The WHCA statement added that the incident “does revive the issue of whether it is appropriate for an opinion columnist to have a front row seat in the WH briefing room.”

Source: Huffington Post, Politico

NBC News’s Pete Williams reports:

Kagan, 50, served as the Dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009. Obama nominated her to serve in her current post as solicitor general early in 2009, and she won Senate confirmation by a vote of 61-31. She is the first woman to serve as solicitor general of the United States.

She was widely viewed as a front-runner when Obama was considering candidates for a Supreme Court opening last year, but the president ultimately chose Sonia Sotomayor for the job.

Unlike the other Supreme Court justices, Kagan has never before served as a federal judge.

Kagan would be the fourth woman ever nominated to the high court and continue a trend of Ivy League-educated lawyers who sit on the bench.

Virginia State Capitol

RICHMOND, VA – Virginia state law makers passed laws earlier this month that are intended to nullify proposed health-care legislation that carries with it mandates for individuals to purchase health insurance.

Virginia is the first state to pass a law that would allow its residents to opt out of the proposed federal requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance, which is one of the elements of the proposed health care bill currently pending in Congress. State legislatures in Idaho and Utah also approved similar measures this month that would limit the scope of the proposed legislation. Several other state legislatures also are considering similar laws and are promoting constitutional amendments that would limit federal requirements. Most are following Virginia’s lead in nullifying the mandate on health insurance…

Will laws pass by states that would exempt their citizens from a federal law requiring all individuals to carry health insurance be able to stand up constitutionally?

Proponents of the new Virginia law cite the tenth amendment plus existing case law, but others have serious doubts that states can override Federal law. States have tried to resist federal laws before. For example, southern states tried this approach in the 1950s as a way avoid school integration.

The problem lies in the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause which essentially says that federal laws reign supreme.

The state bills are prone to be challenged in court. This would setup new legal battles over whether federal law can trump state laws.

The issue is heating up and is being debated all over the blogs. For example, in a recent article on the USA website, Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center, a non-partisan think tank in Los Angeles raises the question, “If there are enough states or people refusing to comply … what’s the federal government going to do?” The Tenth Amendment Center is an advocate for individual and states’ rights.

The Tenth Amendment Center website for the state of Colorado also discusses this issue. In an article written by Geoff Broughton, he asks a couple of important questions:

This leaves you with two very important questions you should answer before you make up your mind.  First, does the Constitution allow congress to mandate health insurance be purchased by every citizen simply for being alive?  Second, if the answer is no, what can be done if the Congress passes a law it is not legally allowed to pass?

The Arizona state Legislature passed a ballot measure in June that that will be put to the voters to decide. The issue is scheduled to go to Arizona voters in November, when they will be asked to amend the state’s constitution. If passed, the amendment would say that no “person or employer” could be compelled to participate in a health care system or insurance plan or pay a penalty for not participating.

Arizona Republican Rep. Nancy Barto sponsored the bill against the federal mandate in the state House. The USA Today article goes on to say that Barto expects the ballot initiative to pass but she also expects a legal challenge. “We are ready to fight that battle for the sake of all the states that are doing this,” Barto says.

At least four other states are also working on legislation or constitutional amendments – Utah, Idaho, Florida and Louisiana.

White House May Obtain Power Over Internet

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, along with his aides, have spent months behind closed doors drafting a revised U.S. Senate bill that proposes giving the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”  Read full story here

Find a lawyer
Internet Lawyers
Constitutional Lawyers