Virginia won round one in the donnybrook against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or as it's also known as in some circles, "The Nationalization of healthcare bill." Is Idaho next? A Federal judge in Virginia's Commonwealth denied the White House's request to dismiss the charge that the healthcare bill was un-Constitutional because it requires the American people to either purchase healthcare or pay a penalty.
The lawsuit was filed by Virginia A.G. Ken Cuccinelli on March the 23rd, the day the President signed the healthcare bill into law. In the complaint the plaintiffs note that the Federal Government does not have authority under the Constitutions "Commerce Clause" to force American citizens into purchasing a healthcare plan. The Commerce Clause means what it says the Federal Government is able to do in regards to commerce "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States." What it doesn't say is that the Federal Government can force an unwilling citizen to participate in commerce whether it desires to or not.
Idaho was one of the first to take the preemptive step in opposing the governmental takeover of one of America's privileges when Governor Butch Otter signed House Bill 391 on the same day that Virginia signed their bill. Another dozen States have followed the leads of Virginia and Idaho.
Whether we agree that the Presidents healthcare reform act is a necessary evil or not, the Constitution is not and was never intended to be a document that's easily manipulated; the Amendment process makes sure of it. The words mean exactly what the authors wrote and any intention or attempt to change it ought to seek out that process. This argument over the healthcare reform act isn't about politics of the left or the right. Rather it's about making sure our elected leaders govern within the bounds of Americas laws as set forth by the Constitution.
Comments