Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen yesterday officially submitted the necessary paperwork to the Florida Attorney General’s Office seeking to have Wisconsin added as a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform legislation. Joining Van Hollen in this motion were the Attorneys General of Ohio, Kansas, and Wyoming, bringing the number of states attached to the lawsuit, if allowed to proceed as such, to 24.
Opposed since March 2010
Van Hollen, a Republican, has publicly challenged the constitutionality of the federal health care reform legislation since it was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Van Hollen unsuccessfully tried to bring a lawsuit against it merely two days later. At the heart of the issue for Van Hollen (please see video) is a mandate within the legislation that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a financial penalty for failing to do so. Van Hollen, and other Attorneys General across the country, feels this mandate is an unprecedented infringement on the rights of American citizens and must be stopped.
As published on the State Department of Justice’s website, Van Hollen said, “The Constitution places limits on the power of the federal government, and these limits must be defended or they will disappear. Never before has the federal government required an individual to either buy government-approved insurance or pay a penalty. And nowhere does the Constitution authorize Congress to regulate in this manner.”
Van Hollen wrote a letter to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle on March 25, 2010 imploring Doyle to allow him to file a lawsuit against this legislation. According to state statues, before Van Hollen could bring suit against an entity such as the federal government, permission from either the governor or one house of the state Legislature must be bestowed upon him. Doyle quickly rejected the appeal, calling the lawsuit, as published on JSOnline, “a frivolous and political attempt to thwart the actions of Congress." Van Hollen was also denied permission from the Democratic controlled state Legislature.
To read Van Hollen’s March 25 letter to Doyle, please click here.
Ally in the governor
Republican Governor Scott Walker, who was officially inaugurated as Wisconsin’s 45th governor on Jan. 3, campaigned on the promise that, if elected, he would do all he could to appeal this legislation and enable Van Hollen to pursue whatever legal measures he deems appropriate to plead Wisconsin’s case. True to his word, merely hours after his inauguration, Walker sent Van Hollen a letter officially authorizing him to proceed with the necessary legal measures to bring about a suit against the federal government.
To read Walker’s Jan. 3 letter to Van Hollen, please click here.
It must be noted that simply because Van Hollen has submitted the paperwork required to add Wisconsin as a plaintiff in the case, there is no guarantee that he will achieve this desired result. Before Wisconsin and the three other states can be added to the suit, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi must submit the case for these states to U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida. Justice Vinson will make the final determination as to whether or not to allow Wisconsin and the other states to join the suit as plaintiffs. A ruling is expected within the next few weeks.
Rebuke from Democratic officials
This legal action by Van Hollen, a direct result of the massive Republican victories in November that enabled the party to overtake the governorship, the state Assembly and the state Senate, has met with resistance from those within the state Democratic Party. Speaking out against this action in recent days, State Democratic Chairman Mike Tate is concerned with the cost that such a lawsuit would bring the average Wisconsin taxpayer and that the suit would serve as a diversion to the Department of Justice and would take their attorneys away from their normal role of crime fighting and prosecuting.
As published on the Democratic Party of Wisconsin website, Tate wrote, “At a time of deep financial crisis, Scott Walker has sent J.B. Van Hollen on a costly political errand that, if it were successful, would have the effect of denying health care to tens of thousands of Wisconsinites, and adding $1 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 20 years. Van Hollen has already shown how political this is by consulting with Texas Republican operatives on the taxpayer dime. He must now be explicit about what costs there will be to Wisconsin taxpayers when their lawyers are doing Scott Walker's partisan bidding, instead of fighting crime."
The Doyle administration stated publicly shortly after the legislation was passed that the state would save $364.6 million between January 2014 and June 2016 thanks to the federal government’s larger role of infusing cash into the state to assist in covering the cost of health care to those low income residents that are not currently covered. The state’s BadgerCare Plus program, which offers low income residents health care coverage, would see increased financial support from the federal government in an effort to expand the program and cover more families.
Van Hollen counters
Van Hollen, for his part, counters by saying the “minimal” cost to taxpayers in filing the suit would be far outweighed by the importance of the issue. He feels that by repealing the legislation and ensuring that Wisconsin residents are not forced to buy something that they either do not want or do not need, they will be saving much more money in the long-term. He also mentioned that he would be assigning two attorneys on a “very part-time basis” to work on the suit and that the bulk of the work would be shared amongst the 24 other states that are serving as plaintiffs.
Finally, Van Hollen made note of what he deems the Democratic hypocrisy on this issue. He said that he believes Democrats “would be screaming” for him to challenge a mandate by the federal government that required everyone to buy guns, rather than health insurance, for example. He worries that the arguments against filing a law suit are grounded more in politics than in the constitutionality of the issue.
The newly minted Republican controlled U.S. House of Representatives is seeking to formally propose legislation to repeal the health care reform law within the next few weeks. This legislation could wind up being nothing more than political posturing, opponents argue, because the legislation would surely die in the U.S. Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, or with a veto by President Obama, if it even got that far.
The 20 states that are currently serving as plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the federal government are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
Comments
I dont feel like i should be forced to have health insurance, I think everyone would like to have health insurance if they could afford it. If you need affordable health insurance search online "Wise Health Insurance" you dont want to be with out insurance any time.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!