The nut of the case:
That last sentence explains to everyone in the mainstream press - and to those in Washington who foisted this monster upon us - why the Tea Party exists today.STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), (“PPACA”)imposes complex and significant regulatory changes on all 50 States. Businesses also must come to grips with the intricate requirements of the law and dramatically reorder the way health insurance is provided to their employees. PPACA was challenged from the moment it was signed. A steady drumbeat of new lawsuits continues to punctuate the news. Despite the regulatory overhaul PPACA imposes on the States, uncertainty surrounds the law. In carefully reasoned opinions, two district courts have found that Congress overstepped its authority in enacting all or part of PPACA. Other courts have disagreed, leaving the States and businesses unsure whether PPACA’s complex requirements, or parts of them, will survive. Given the importance of the issues at stake to the States and to the economy as a whole, this Court should grant certiorari to resolve a matter of imperative public importance.
The United States Senate passed PPACA, on Christmas Eve 2009, on a straight party line vote without a single vote to spare. Cobbled together in secret, PPACA was passed through without committee hearing or report, employing such florid deal-making as to generate scornful popular terms like “the Louisiana Purchase” and “the Cornhusker Kick-back.” (App. at 156-57). At the heart of PPACA’s financing scheme is § 1501, which requires American citizens, with certain exceptions, to purchase a good or service from other citizens; to wit, a policy of insurance complying with federal standards. (App. at 102-115). Although Congress purported to be exercising Commerce Clause powers in enacting PPACA, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010), this claim was known to be problematical. When the Senate Finance Committee had asked the Congressional Research Service whether a mandate supported by a penalty would be constitutional, the response was equivocal: “Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.” Because an intervening election in Massachusetts removed the availability of cloture in the Senate, PPACA was passed by the House of Representatives unaltered, and then subjected to minor amendment in a reconciliation process dealing as much with college loans as with health care.
The Attorney General of Virginia has the duty to defend the legislative enactments of the Commonwealth. Virginia Code §§ 2.2-507; 2.2-513. When the President signed PPACA on March 23, 2010, the validity of both the Federal and State enactments were drawn into question. If PPACA was supported by an enumerated power, then it would prevail under the Supremacy Clause. If not, the Health Care Freedom Act would be a valid exercise of the police powers reserved to the States. In order to resolve this conflict, Virginia filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
The gravamen of the Complaint was that the claimed power to require a citizen to purchase a good or a service from another citizen lacks any principled limit and is tantamount to a national police power. [emphasis mine]
We fought this battle once.
We're more than willing to fight it again.
"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men."
-- Samuel Adams --