Virginia Governor signs bill blocking health insurance mandate.
It’s been a week for historic signings on health care, and law suits.
Of course early this week saw President Barack Obama sign the federal health care reform bill, seen as the make-or break legislation of his young presidency. On Wednesday the Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, signed a set of bills restricting that law in the Commonwealth.
The four bills which will become one law exempt Virginia from the ‘individual mandate’ provision which requires Americans it buy health insurance or face a penalty.
Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has already filed suit within minutes of the President signing the bill arguing that the federal health care legislation violates this Virginia bill and the inter-state commerce clause. Virginia is one of 14 states to take action arguing overreach of federal power.
Governor McDonnell signed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act at a ceremony in Richmond attended by Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, General Assembly members and bill sponsors Sen. Steve Martin, Sen. Fred Quayle, Sen. Jill Vogel, Del. Bob Marshall and the State Secretary of Health and Human Resources Dr. Bill Hazel.“This is a historic unfunded mandate on the people of Virginia. We do not believe that the United States Congress should mandate the purchase of services,” Governor McDonnell said at the signing ceremony.
Late last night McDonnell, a former Attorney General himself, said he had consulted with Ken Cuccinelli who advised him he had been doing the legal research over the last couple of months about this claim and that they both believe that an individual mandate passed by the United States Congress is not authorized under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.
“We think it’s not a proper act on the people of Virginia. We passed a bill during the course of this last General Assembly session that went into effect two weeks ago tonight that says that it is not permissible to force the citizens of Virginia to purchase health insurance under penalty of law.
“We have got standing, we believe, under that new enactment which I signed ceremonially here in Richmond today. And that’s the basis for our lawsuit against the federal government.”
McDonnell said the makeup of the General Assembly was an “interesting thing”.
“This was a bi-partisan effort. It was primarily introduced by Republican legislators but we have a Democratic Senate – it passed 23 to 17 in the Senate – and we have a Republican House where it passed overwhelmingly – 66 to 29 – and that’s with the Democratic Minority Leader voting for it. So it was truly a bi-partisan effort,” Governor McDonnell said.
“Seven out of the eleven U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia voted against the health care reform bill so I think we’ve got fairly significant opposition in Virginia to this bill.
“The most important thing is that, even in a divided legislature, our people have spoken out saying ‘we don’t want an individual mandate on the citizens of Virginia, we don’t believe it’s permissible under the commerce clause of the United States Constitution and therefore these are issues that should be left to the states,” said the Governor.
McDonnell emphasized that the Act was passed with bipartisan support in sharp contrast to the narrow straight line partisan vote that enacted the federal health care bill on Sunday night.
On the timing of the matter, the Governor said that a judge has been assigned to the case but a hearing has not been scheduled.
“I think the impact is so significant…that the courts are going to want to hear fairly soon. Everybody wants to know what this answer is because it could undermine the entire federal act,” McDonnell added.
The question for the court, said McDonnell, was whether or not there is a severability provision that they can invoke.
Virginia and Idaho are the only states with specific statutes that prevent an individual which gives them a separate claim for standing and a separate argument. Florida and twelve other states have filed a suit on this basis as well as other grounds.
________________________________________________________________________________
Check out my PREVIOUS Posts by either clicking on my picture or clicking PREVIOUS...
COMMENT frequently if you agree or disagree... I value your comments...
Interested in receiving updates when I post a new article? Then please click on the SUBSCRIBE link next to my picture and you will receive an email when aI post a new article...No Worries, we don't pass your info on to other sites...No Spam...assured...
I also encourage anyone to sponsor me by clicking on the SPONSOR tab at the top of the post...Advertise your service or cause for as little as $29 per month...
Comments
Forget this not! This unjust bill was signed on 23 March 2010, on the anniversary of Patrick Henry's speech at St. Johns Church which ended with the famous words "Give Me Liberty, or give Death."
Coincidence, or "In your face?"
Want this to go away, AG introduce a bill in November to express the peoples 'will.' If 3/4 of the states do the exact same thing ... the people have spoken (Constitutional quorum) ... and the third power in our Republic must accept it ... remember the Supreme Court also works for 'We the People."
It is bad bill, with good intentions.
This is precisely why I voted for you. Cut spending, cut taxes and in doing so balance the budget and stimulate growth.
The best way to insure liberty for oneself is to not dictate what others should do.
I like my right to privacy. How is this individual mandate not a violation of the right to privacy? Does a state "opt out" clause make an unconstitutional law less unconstitutional? Would that state "opt out" clause in this law containing the individual mandate make that mandate constitutional? If this is held up as legal, then what's to keep some future government dominated with religious conservatives - modern Republicans - from mandating that everyone buy and use explicit content filters in their TV sets and computers (to save the children) or face an IRS fine? Suppose they were to try to outlaw abortion or outlaw women crossing state lines to get abortions by giving the states an "opt out clause" for these laws. -------- There is no end to this very slippery slope of violating our right to privacy using the federal power to tax or regulate interstate commerce as subterfuge. Where is the ACLU? Where are the true civil libertarians?
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!