talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Federal appeals court blocks state lawsuit over health care reform law

...the three-judge panel concluded Thursday the state lacks the jurisdictional authority to challenge the 2010 law.

A separate lawsuit by private Liberty University also was rejected on similar grounds.

This leaves the question of who the hell does have standing?

The Richmond-based court becomes the second such federal court to uphold the constitutionality of ...

The court ruled on technical grounds, not the larger constitutional questions...

Who is worse, the reporter that writes self-contradicting articles, or the editor who lets it through to print?

I can't put my opinion on here, because I'm asking questions I don't actually know the answer to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This law right here: to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party implies the states have the capability to be roving constitutional watchdogs of sorts. This is a question of whether the United States government has the authority to do what it's doing. I tell you this: when the State legislatures are responsible for amending the constitution, they have a similar watchdog power.

Nobody has 'watchdog power' except the courts. This is about standing for a lawsuit.

The Constitution doesn't just grant everyone blanket power to do lawsuits.

It seems to me that's nonsense, not only based on my plain English understanding of what the constitution says, but also based on the fact that this is actually court doctrine rather than actual law. The constitution does, in fact do that.

Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29#cite_note-12

Virginia is not a person.

Even for an individual, they must still demonstrate standing. It's not automatic.

The funny thing about that is, Virginia may not be a person in the organic sense, but it is a corporate entity, just like any other corporation in business. Virginia's standing in federal court is the United States is acting in a manner which is not constitutional, and consequently, economy injury will occur. Some Virginian is unemployed, can't get a job even though they've demonstrated they've worked hard at getting a job, then they get penalized for not having insurance? How is that not injury? lol @ injury in this context

Virginia may not be a person in the organic sense, but it is a corporate entity, just like any other corporation in business.

Corporations do not actually have the same legal rights as people. That's just a fiction. They're not actual people, and they're not treated as people under the law.

Virginia is not a corporate entity; it's a state. If you want to look at the definition of a state, you can look at the Constitution.

ome Virginian is unemployed, can't get a job even though they've demonstrated they've worked hard at getting a job, then they get penalized for not having insurance? How is that not injury? lol @ injury in this context

THAT PERSON would have the right to sue. That person. Not a third party. Also, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE LAW, it says they will SUBSIDIZE the health insurance if you are unemployed.

This is so stupid. Can you believe that I don't actually support the individual mandate? I think it's stupid, but that doesn't magically mean that the state of Virginia has standing to sue.

The state of Virginia has standing to sue because the Congress passed a law which is not derived from any honest interpretation of the constitution. Congress broke the law and the court claims they have no standing to assert Congress' dishonesty. That actually makes all three branches of the government dishonest.

That's not standing under the legal definition of standing.

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_%28law%29

From that definition, it actually is.

Where?

Redressability is the only road block where it not having standing would be valid. This is a terrible doctrine because it can lead us to a path where the judge makes an arbitrary decision, like a Democrat appointed by Obama who accepts an inherent contradiction in the law which technically does not exist.

What? I asked you to show me where Virginia has standing.

I just did.

Redressability? How does it have that? It needs the first two before that. Demonstrate how Virginia has injury, and subsequently causation please, then we'll get to redressability.

Any one citizen in Virginia forced to participate in Commerce against their will is an injured party, which actually is a contradiction of "regulation of commerce" for this reason: a regulation of commerce among the states is to set rules for how the buying and selling of goods will be maintained across state boundaries. The power granted to Congress is to protect the nation from exclusionary practices among the states. An imperative to buy a particular good is the same as saying you cannot be without a particular good, which is in effect a prohibition rather than a regulation. These are two totally different powers; one of which Congress does not have.

Any one citizen in Virginia forced

Okay, so individuals Virginians have standing. How does VIRGINIA itself have standing?

Virginia's law stating no Virginian must buy health insurance, though a response to Obamacare, stands because it passed and its within their constitutional power. The 10th amendment reigns supreme in Virginia while Congress has no such power to contradict the 10th.

Federal law supersedes state law whether it's constitutional federal law or not.

Only a citizen that has suffered damages because of the federal law can challenge its constitutionality in court.

This is really easy, yahvah.

Yeah dude, that's why the 10th amendment reigns supreme. Congress has no power to reign supreme in this matter, and the 10th amendment does reign supreme. That's why Virginia can challenge the constitutionality of the acts of Congress in court. This is really easy, kylinrouge.

Invoking the 10th amendment is not what I asked for. I asked for you to demonstrate Virginia's standing using the legal definition of standing.

As far as my opinion is concerned, this bullshit quibble you want to cling onto over the "legal definition of standing" is a red herring the court's going to use because it has no truthful argument as to why Congress can legitimately force an individual citizen of any state in the United States to purchase a good or service. Congress is like the mobster dudes rollin' up in your 'hood telling you "buy our protection or else."

So, you're unable to prove Virginia has any standing in this case, just like the court did. Thanks.

Your tactic is clever.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only