Do you know if the other states have any similar laws? Is it necessary that they do to remain in the case?
Yes, but Virginia has plenary police power to make (or forbid) people to be required to buy health care. That is, if there were no federal law on the issue, Virginia could make a law that said, “No entity in the state of Virginia can require the purchase of health care insurance.”
So now there IS federal law on the issue. Where both the states and the federal government have jurisdiction to legislate, there’s a principle called federal preemption that is triggered when Congress acts in a way that directly or indirectly causes a conflict. A direct conflict exists when the state and federal laws squarely oppose one another, so that an act cannot be in compliance with both. Indirect conflict exists when the state law hinders or frustrates the purpose Congress evinces when passing the federal law. See Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) for a good illustration.
So now we have a state law in conflict with a federal law. That gives the AG standing.
As I said above, he’ll lose on the merits. But he has standing.
Given the federal courts’ “case or controversy” requirement, I’d say any state in the case has to be able to point to a direct or indirect conflict between their law and the federal mandate.
There’s also “field preemption,” by the way, which says that Congress can legislate in a given field and thereby show its intent to regulate the field, which may preempt a state law even if that state law doesn’t conflict with federal law. That’s not in play here.
But no one is really required to buy health care. They’re just taxed if they don’t. I think this is primarily a tax issue and Virgina has no standing to complain about federal taxes.
Well, clearly you’ve done the research, so I won’t try to sway you any further.
I actually have done some research, and I think the question of standing is valid. The federal government doesn’t need Virginia’s permission to impose a federal tax for any reason it wants. I don’t see how the state has any grounds for complaint.
What did you think of the language in Steward Machine Company that suggested that a key factor was the state’s acquiesence in the “invasion” of state sovereignty? That was a tax issue, too.
I disagree that this was a key factor. The key factor was general welfare. From Cardozo’s ruling:
Pretty well on point, don’t you think?
The issues regarding state complicity are irrelevant since the health insurance mandate does not involve the states having to do anything or be coerced into any legislation or into any involvement at all. That’s why I contnd that they don’t have any standing. This is between the federal government and federal taxpayers. The states have no business even being in the room.
The courts may be able to blow off the lawsuits until 2014 because the challengers will not be able to show injury before the mandates and penalties take effect.
I was focusing more on:
If that was not a factor, why mention it? If ti was a factor, then to what extent should it be weighed?
It’s now 13 state AGs, all GOP except James Caldwell of Louisiana.
Hey – 13 states! You could make a country out of that!
Ten bucks says FOX latches onto this narrative and tries to imply that it’s significant.
:dubious: Nothing special about that. Texas, alone, could easily be its own county. Easily.
I didn’t say it wasn’t A factor, I said it wasn’t the KEY factor, and the extent to which it should be weighed with regards to the health insurance mandate is zero because it’s completely off point. The states are not being coerced into anything.
BG and I are referring to the original 13 states, with me further commenting that FOX would somehow use that to suggest that these lawsuits are extra-patriotic. So I’m not sure what your post has to do with that.
Oh, I guess there is something special about that number. :smack: I didn’t make the connection.
It’s 14 now. And it’s a “bi-partisan” effort since Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana joined the fray. I wonder what Jindal has on him.
No, he merely claims to be a lawyer. I’ve never bought it.
Yeah I am intimately familiar with the book, I own it. It was my first book pertaining to the law that I purchased on my own volition, i.e. it was not purchased as a result of a law school class. Textualihe appeals to both. Textualism is originalism in J. Scalia’s view, when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. J. Scalia’s goal, when interpreting the U.S. Constitution, is to ascertain how “intelligent and informed people of the time display how the text of the Constitution was originally understood…What I look in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text” Pg. 38.
So, we are both right. By the way, did you enjoy the book?
So I just flipped through the complaint filed by the AG’s. Is it normal for a complaint (pdf) to be so…political? It reads more like campaign material for the FL AG’s upcoming race for governor then it does like an honest attempt to challenge the law.
All the other AG’s just get a mention of what state their from and what there names are. Not too hard to figure out which AG’s office actually wrote the complaint.
It also referes to the Bill as the new “Health Care Regime” and stresses how many pages it is.