A group of people has filed suit against the president of the United States in Lubbock, asking a federal court to declare unconstitutional massive health care legislation passed in 2010.
The class-action lawsuit against Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, among others, is a re-filing of a case a federal judge in Tennessee’s Eastern District threw out.
“Lubbock has a really good reputation of the following the Constitution — following the law — so we decided to file there,” said Van Irion, a Tennessee attorney representing the plaintiffs for Liberty Legal Foundation. “It didn’t matter which district we decided to file in because we have members in every single one of them.”
Slaton resident Arthur Enloe is a member of the group and volunteered to serve as a plaintiff to challenge health care, Irion said.
Enloe could not be reached for comment Monday afternoon.
Liberty Legal Foundation is a conservative activist group dedicated to “strategically challenging flawed court precedent to restore our Constitution.”
The lawsuit filed in Lubbock differs from other legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because it alleges the federal government has no authority to regulate health care because the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Constitution in 1942 in Wickard v. Filburn.
“The Wickard v. Filburn case misinterpreted the commerce clause and granted Congress and the federal government powers that it was never intended to be granted,” Irion said. “We’re trying to get Wickard v. Filburn overturned.”
Irion said he wouldn’t try to guess what kind of timetable on which the case would progress, but said he planned to file a motion for preliminary injunction, asking U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings to halt reform.
“It would produce a court order barring the federal government from enacting or enforcing any of the enactments of ‘Obamacare,’” Irion said.
Other federal lawsuits have challenged the health care reform legislation, but Irion said his group’s suit presents a unique legal argument.
“We agree the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but we think that the Congress doesn’t have the authority under the Constitution to be regulating health care at all,” Irion said.
15 comments:
Cool stuff like this never happens in Lubbock. I get the point these people are trying to get across. Congress passing the health care bill is unfair to some people in the U.S. The middle class would have to pay as much as the upper class while receiving none of the benefits the lower class gets. Forcing everyone to get health care can actually be more expensive to specific families and people. Everyone having health care would benefit people that already have it due to people needing medical assistance that cannot afford it, but forcing that on everyone does seem unconstitutional.
This is a bit absurd. For starters, if you want something changed on the grounds that it's unconstitutional, shouldn't your target be the US government and not the president as an individual? Also, I can't realistically see a group of lawyers from Lubbock being the ones to make a successful case against Obamacare. This has all the ingredients for a poorly thought out, ineffective plan.
That'a way lubbockites!! Look at us making a national impact and what not! I think that the outcome of this case will be interesting to follow but in reality you have to wonder what the chances of overturning a previous supreme court decision are. Not only do they have to present an incredible case they have to beat out the previous decision. Not to say that it cant be done but i would assume that the chances are extremely slim. But regardless im giving props to Lubbock for getting involved in the national government decisions. I also think its interesting the lubbock texas was chosen as the place to file the case. Just seems a bit random i guess.
I think Lubbock should tred lightly here. We dont any bad publicity. Also how has Lubbock been constitutional? I dont think we have done anything important to be considered that.
It's incredibly strange that this is a case at all. The federal government has no right to regulate health care in any way. Medicare stopped paying doctors for the opperations they preform, while the healthcare bill was going through the reformation. If any other company stopped paying their employees, because they were figuring out how they wanted to rearrange their company, they would be arrested. But since its the government, its fine.
Way to go
As if Lubbock needs another legal drama right now! I find it interesting that the group considers Lubbock as the solution to finding a local "market" to pander its case to after being thrown out of the traditionally conservative state Tennessee. Also, after the commerce clause has been used in so many questionably commerce related situations, this suit follows the trend of it power being retracted a bit. Considering the general local attitude toward the health care plan, it will probably proceed provided the counsel behaves.
Well I guess people will know what Lubbock is now. I honestly don't know how I feel about this. There will always be outspoken people in this town. And always people against the president. I'm gonna need an explanation on this later for how it's unconstitutional.
This article is definitely interesting. I think it's cool that these guys are from Lubbock. Anyways, however bold of a move this is, I don't think anything will happen. The only way I see this coming close to working is if they have a ton of supporters and are perfect. I just see that the decision was made already, so I don't think the government will waste their time. Or maybe they will. :/? Either way, I say it's worth a shot.
the fact that Lubbock has been able to be under such a inconspicuous cover about their legal affairs is really just surprising due to the fact that we never hear about anything about the cities legal affairs. Lubbock does have a record that is great for "following the law". so it is no real surprise that Lubbock would oppose the bill with such opposition. Especially when there are so many when the city has so many health care coverages for city employed workers.
For starters, i feel honored that Lubbock is mentioned in national news. Way to go west texas for not being lame for once. Back to the subject, its absurd to force people buy health care. What if some people cant afford it? What if a family had to decide whether to pay rent for the month or pay the health care plan? Sure its good to have security with health care but you can not force a human to buy anything. Im glad it was ruled unconstitutional, it needs to be.
It doesn't surprise me that citizens in Lubbock would sue the Obama administration for Obamacare.
What is surprising is that the Liberty Legal Foundation found a Constitutional argument to put up against Obamacare, instead of just saying that it's crappy legislation and should be repealed. But, simply from my perspective, it seems that this law has made a majority of Americans angry. In my opinion, if legislation is capable of making that many people angry, it shouldn't have to be repealed because it shouldn't have been passed in the first place.
Even though I think that this is a cool idea, the fact that Lubbock is trying to get its say in the nation, I don't think that much will get done unless there are lots of people willing to join the argument. Right now I don't see any change happening.
Health care is something entirely different from commerce. However it doesn't make sense to choose to argue against something that benefit you. This will be interesting to watch. I don't think the Lubbock group will accomplish anything.
I personally have no problem helping out people who really need it; however, I dont think America should be rewarding people for not working. This is the first time we've ever seen this in our country, to be able to take money from people who have working hard for it, having not worked for it themselves. I am also not a fan of how the government is forcing us to buy this. If we do not there will be a large fine or jail time. This is not freedom, to be in a country as long as you are either an illegal, on unemployment, or in debt up to our eyeballs because we have to pay for everyones healthcare.
The Wickard v. Filburn case was about the agricultural production of wheat, if congress could regulate it. The ruling was yes, but this group is willing to argue otherwise. I can agree to a certain extent that giving congress that power oversteps constitutional boundaries. According to the commerce clause congress can regulate interstate commerce, but does that really include healthcare? What are all the details to this healthcare plan that make it constitutional to regulate throughout the country?
Post a Comment