Blumenthal Denies Request to Sue; GOP Says It’s Political
by Christine Stuart | Jun 21, 2010 4:00am
(11) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Health Care, Legal, State Capitol
A prolific litigator, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced Friday that “after extensive legal research and careful balancing of the costs and potential benefits,“ he denied a request from all of the state’s Republican senators to join a lawsuit challenging the federal health reform law.
“The Act falls well within Congress’ power and is therefore constitutional,” Blumenthal said Friday afternoon in a press release.
The lawsuit filed by 19 attorneys general alleges that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act infringes on the constitutional rights of Americans by mandating they have health care coverage or pay a tax penalty.
Aside from opining that the Act is within Congress’ power, Blumenthal who is also running for U.S. Senate, said it falls well within the powers of the Commerce Clause.
“A conclusion that the Act violates the Commerce Clause would require a reversal of over 70 years of settled Commerce Clause jurisprudence and doctrine extending back through the creation of Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid and countless other vital and popular federal programs that have been the law of the land for decades,” Blumenthal said.
However, “Even in the unlikely event that claims asserted by other states were to succeed, any relief and conclusions as to the Act’s constitutionality would apply with equal force to Connecticut, at no litigation expense to our taxpayers.” Blumenthal, who supports federal health reform, said.
An extremely divisive political issue, state Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, who signed onto the letter in March, said Blumenthal was playing politics.
“It’s clearly a questionable law given the fact that so many other attorneys general are suing,” Debicella, who is running against U.S. Rep. Jim Himes in the 4th Congressional District, said. “The Attorney General is probably making a political call on this rather than reading the constitution.”
“Regardless of your personal beliefs or philosophies you are bound by duty to protect and defend the people of this state, the small employers who will be penalized or put out of business by the mandates, the large insurance companies that call our state home and employ tens of thousands of our residents in an industry that will eventually be eliminated by government intrusion into our free markets, and the private citizens who will ultimately have to pay the $1.3 trillion price tag,“ the letter Debicella and 11 other state senators sent to Blumenthal in March read.
Blumenthal said he concluded the lawsuit would have “virtually no chance of success” and “could be costly to the state.”
While noting Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell did not join her fellow Republicans in making the request for legal action, Blumenthal said she has already sought to transfer 45,000 recipients of a state funded medical program to Medicaid, which is expected to save Connecticut at least $53 million over the next 15 months.
In light of these savings, and several other legal considerations, Blumenthal said filing a lawsuit to undermine the Act could financially harm Connecticut.
(11) Comments
posted by: David K | June 21, 2010 6:52am
Did Dan Debicella really just say that because other AGs are suing it’s clearly unconstitutional? THINKING FOR YOURSELF is a pre-requisite for being a Congressman. You don’t base analyses on the “everyone else is doing it” principle. Heaven forbid we let this guy ally himself with John Boehner, Michele Bachman and the likes of Joe Barton.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | June 21, 2010 9:07am
There are 20 states as of the May 14 amended suit challenging the mandate.
The general stance is that the Commerce clause is being read too broadly and threatens to overwhelm the entire separation of federal and state rights.
In recent cases justices have commented on the expansion of Commerce Clause and suggested the need for limits.
It’s a fairly important case as far as states rights goes. Coupled with either a California Prop 8 appeal to the Supreme Court and/or the Massachusetts DOMA repeal case and the Supremes are going to be establishing the groundwork for the new millenia.
Personally I don’t think they are going to take the road of Federal Supremacy on these cases if argued properly.
One: they won’t adjucate that the use of the noun marriage is a consitutional right to all forms of relationships and so define marriage in the courts but may address the economic affects of DOMA and Prop 8 and demand a separate but equal arrangement for civil unions. That’s the best case for the anti-Doma and anti-Prop 8 crowd IMHO.
In the case of mandates for health care? Are Americans born with an obligation to purchase health care insurance or their guardians are taxed? A birth tax won’t fly IMHO.
We don’t require mothers to have XXX amount of pre-natal care or training but we will mandate health insurance or a birth tax?
We don’t mandate that there is a minimum economic support standard for births but we will mandate insurance or what is in effect a birth tax?
It won’t happen.
posted by: victim's revenge | June 21, 2010 10:48am
I love the way these Democrats use their words to convince the public that the Republicans are trying to take something away from them. Even when they’re writing these laws it’s worded in such a way that if you oppose “Patient Protection and Affordable Care” then you have to be the bad guy. How about this one; A conclusion that the Act violates the Commerce Clause would require a reversal of over 70 years of settled Commerce Clause jurisprudence and doctrine extending back through the creation of Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid and countless other vital and popular federal programs that have been the law of the land for decades”. Then I guess Blumenthal must be right because he’s the one with a Harvard education, we’re just a bunch of idiots. Who in their right mind would ever even think about messing around with, “countless other vital and popular federal programs” Then he makes it sound like he was actually looking into the possibility of joining the lawsuit, but after carefully weighing all the facts he decided to fight for the people to insure that the Republicans can’t take away “Patient Protection and Affordable Care” from the people.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | June 21, 2010 11:58am
As a parallel US citizens are not required to have a pension policy or to pay into Social Security if they do not work.
If they do work that’s where the Commerce Clause comes in to snatch the taxes at the Federal level.
Citizens are not required to have life insurance or disability.
This reads like the grand daddy of Federal unfunded mandates. It will start with Health Insurance, then to Disability and then to Pensions.
Babies are born either with a health policy in hand courtesy of their parents or they owe money (once again to be paid by their parents)?
Nope. Won’t fly
posted by: CT Jim | June 21, 2010 5:42pm
Gee goatee just pass the bar? If you read the law it’s not an expansion of the commerce provision at all. It is a tax break and the way you get the break is by purchasing health insurance, if you don’t purchase health insurance you don’t get the break. This is no different that if you were a first time homebuyer you got a $8,000 tax credit or cash for clunkers. Why didn’t they take that up? The fact that only 20 states took it up means there are 30 AG’s that know the law or read the bill. Of the 20 15 know it’s garbage but do it politically and the other 5 are nuts.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | June 21, 2010 7:46pm
Jim a good brief from Heritage.
I don’t think the SCOTUS can rule favorably based on the same reasoning they used in striking donw parts of the vioence against women act in 2000.
As they wrote then:
The Court explained that the need to distinguish between economic activities that directly and those that indirectly affect interstate commerce was due to “the concern that we expressed in Lopez that Congress might use the Commerce Clause to completely obliterate the Constitution’s distinction between national and local authority.” Referring to Lopez, the Court said: “Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and State authority would blur.” The majority further stated, “[I]t is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign.” Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion also expressed the concern that “Congress [was] appropriating State police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
posted by: CT Jim | June 22, 2010 1:48am
Goatee, do you have any sources that aren’t republican think tanks? The heritage foundation has a horrible track record and you could have giving me Michele Bachmans opinion and had it been worth more. Once again ” The Heritage Foundation ” is wrong.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | June 22, 2010 9:36am
Jim,
Conservatives win court decision too. NO need to denigrate their Attorney Generals.
The Heritage is a perfectly good Conservative think tank with an excellent record.
Whether I support national health care or not doesn’t change my opinion that I think there’s an excellent chance the SCOTUS over turns part of the bill as currently written.
It won’t be a factor in this election but I expect the GOP will rail against the fact Blumenthal didn’t join the lawsuit to protect states rights and the case is decided in favor of states rights.
Dick’s leaving for the Federal government at the right time.
posted by: CT Jim | June 22, 2010 12:08pm
Goat boy,
You don’t see it as just a little strange that only conservative republicans are fighting this?
This is a political ploy to garner votes this November.
They could care less about 6 years down the road.
You will see shortly after the November elections this constitutionality issue will fade into the sunset.
I also did explain that the bill runs the payment or of lack of one thru the IRS.
The bill calls it a tax credit.
How are tax credits unconstitutional?
You don’t think that scholars thought this out well in advance?
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | June 22, 2010 1:11pm
Jim, the SCOTUS scholars are well divided on this law as written.
They are also divided on their opinions of what the sitting SCOTUS will decide which in fact is what this is all about. who will likely vote where?
In fact it doesn’t matter what anyone else says. The SCOTUS will do what they do.
Remember the Citizen’s United decision this year reversing many opinions on campaign contribs by corps? Many ‘knowing’ SCOTUS scholars were appalled and blind sided including Conservatives.
The Mandate is a similar case where many think the court will reverse some past opinions because the implications of supporting the mandate are too far reaching and the incremental encroachment of Federal Powers over the last few decades needs reversing.
The activist Court is a blessing and a curse. I’m one that agrees their tendency to make micro- decisions in areas like church-state relations or campaign finance have created some over-arching problems when applied consistently across the board in similar yet unlike cases.
It will be a watershed case for Federalism IMHO including attempts to institute a Federal Head Tax or Birth Tax on Health Care which isn’t commerce related.
posted by: CT Jim | June 21, 2010 5:39am
Christine,
Debicella should be thanking the AG for not wasting taxpayers money on a frivolous lawsuit that has a zero chance of winning.
And if Debicella looked at the AG’s that did sue they were ALL republicans from right wing states. Gee I wonder if he thought that was political???