by Thomas Lifson

The lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, brought by Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, has won the very first legal step in a long process. A motion to dismiss brought by the Obama Administration was rejected by the judge.

Rosalind S. Helderman reports on the Washington Post’s Breaking News Blog:

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson rejected arguments from Obama administration lawyers that Virginia has no standing to sue over the law and no chance of ultimately prevailing in its constitutional claim.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of the mandatory purchase of health insurance contained in the ObamaCare legislation. The next step will be a hearing of the legal arguments in Judge Hudson’s courtroom in October.

Mark J. Fitzgibbons adds:

The Virginia lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare survived the federal government’s motion to dismiss. This battle victory for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and his team overcame attempts by the Feds to claim Virginia does not have standing to sue, that the case was not ‘ripe’ to be brought, and that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance is a ‘tax’ that Congress may constitutionally impose anyway.

The 32-page opinion is a carefully written slam-dunk at this first stage. The federal judge wrote, “Never before has the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far.”

The judge even quotes the Feds’ brief that if the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, “that’s the end of the ballgame” for ObamaCare.

The Virginia case of course cites to judicial opinions about the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the 10th Amendment, and so on. It is remarkable, however, in one significant sense: the Virginia case remains true to the text of the Constitution.

If the judges and justices were to remain true to the Constitution itself as this case proceeds up the judicial ladder, then ObamaCare will lose. Those hoping for ObamaCare to win will stake their claims in arguments that are not supported by the pure text of the Constitution. A win by ObamaCare proponents would result in the “end of the ballgame” for restrictions on federal power.

Comment by American Grand Jury:

I like this Attorney General in Virginia. He is smart and aggressive. I also believe Ken Cuccinelli is a God fearing person that loves the Constitution.

by Mark J. Fitzgibbons

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker has angered Georgia Republicans to the point that some have called for his impeachment. Mr. Baker refuses to join other state attorneys general filing suit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. He’s become the darling of the left by his refusal to file suit.

Based on praise by the liberal media, you’d think General Baker was the model of fiscal responsibility and restraint on judicial activism.

That bastion of fiscal responsibility, The New York Times writes, that Mr. Baker “has rejected such lawsuits as ‘frivolous’ and ‘a waste of taxpayer money.’”

AlterNet reports on Mr. Baker’s appearance on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC conservative smear show:

“It’s impossible to have a lawsuit where there are no inherent costs,” Baker said. “Every time you are pulling employees away from their appointed duties to file a lawsuit and to engage in this counter-activity, there’s going to be cost. Lawyers don’t work for free, not even lawyers who work in house. So I’m not aware of any way that a lawsuit can be filed, even if we do it in house, where it doesn’t cost the taxpayer some money.”

If only Mr. Baker had been consistent throughout his career. You see, Mr. Baker was given a grade of A from ACORN in 2008 precisely because he is an activist attorney general who spent taxpayer money in pursuit of ACORN’s legislative and judicial agenda. Mr. Baker’s grade of A is shown on page four of ACORN’s report.

ACORN’s highest grades were awarded to attorneys general “pursuing cutting-edge cases.” ACORN’s favorite attorney general did not worry about frivolous cases, because “in the near future as more legal theories get tested in different states, there will be additional case law established to provide a guide for attorneys general to take legal action.”

Concern for taxpayer money being spent by attorney general? That was obviously never a concern to ACORN’s AGs such as Mr. Baker who were praised for “putting their offices to work for distressed borrowers,” and “devoting additional resources to the issue.”

ACORN knew to rely on activist AGs such as Mr. Baker. In its report, ACORN wrote:

While Congress and some governors have grabbed headlines for some of their modest reactions to the foreclosure crisis, there is another critical and largely untold story of the innovative and impactful leadership that many states’ attorneys general have demonstrated in their diverse responses to the crises in their states.

I wonder how much taxpayer money General Baker spent pursuing ACORN’s agenda rather than protecting the Constitution?

Pursuant to 28 USC §1407(c)(ii) Plaintiff Orly Taitz moves for the Multi District Judicial Panel to coordinate and consolidate this action with Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, Case No. 3-10-cv-91 and motions for both actions to be heard jointly by the Honorable Royce Lamberth in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

These cases involve the following issues of commons fact:

On Tuesday, March 23 Mr. Barack Hussein Obama has signed into law H.R. 3590. This Unprecedented act of encroachment on constitutional liberties of US citizens and individual States by the Federal government is being challenged in the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola division by thirteen state Attorney Generals, who filed their complaint the same day, on March 23, 2010. The same act is being challenged by the undersigned, Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, who is suing pro se Mr. Obama in regards to damages suffered by her, and who included a challenge to the above bill as part of her First Amended Complaint, which was filed by her in the District of Columbia on March 19, 2010 when the passing of the bill was imminent.

H.R. 3590 was signed into law by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, who amazingly does not posses a valid US Social Security number, which every legal citizen of the US is supposed to possess, never proved his legitimacy to presidency and therefore the act is invalid, as it was not signed by one legally entitled to sign it.

Attached is Exhibit 1, Affidavit from a retired Deportation Officer with the department of Homeland Security and licensed investigator Mr. John Sampson, stating that social security number used by Mr. Obama most of his life 042-68-4425 cannot be a lawfully obtained number, as 042 are the initial digits assigned to the state of CT, while Mr. Obama was never a resident of CT.

Exhibit 2, is an affidavit from a private investigator, licensed with the Department of Homeland Security, Susan Daniels. It concurs that for most of his life Mr. Obama has used number 042-68-4425, which cannot be lawfully his, as indeed it was obtained in CT, when Mr. Obama resided in HI. Moreover, Ms. Daniels research shows that this is a number that was issued to an individual born in 1890, and Mr. Obama assumed this number unlawfully. Ms. Daniels provides a list of 8 more social security numbers used by Mr. Obama, as well as several numbers used by Michele Obama.

Exhibit 3 is an affidavit from a licensed investigator and retired Scotland Yard elite anti organized crime officer Mr. Neil Sankey, who has compiled from the most reputable National databases: Lexis Nexis and Choice Point a list of multiple addresses under the names of Barack Obama and Barry Obama, those addresses are connected to 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of HI.

Exhibit four is an affidavit from a licensed document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines, which states that the short version (abbreviated) COLB-Certificate of Life Birth of Barrack Hussein Obama cannot be viewed as genuine without examining the original, currently sealed in the Health Department in HI, which Mr. Obama refuses to unseal in spite of over 60 Federal and multiple State actions brought by citizens, State Representatives and high ranked members of the Military from around the nation. None of the above actions were heard on the merits, but rather were dismissed on technical procedural grounds, such as standing and jurisdiction. All of the above facts cast a doubt as to the legitimacy of Mr. Obama to serve as a president du! e to his lack of Qualification as a Natural Born citizen per Article 2, section 1, §5, making him ineligible to sign H.R.3590. Additionally, Dr. Taitz has brought a Quo Warranto action, as specified in District of Columbia statutes §16-352 §16-353, which allows Quo Warranto action against a federal officer within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. As Florida does not provide such jurisdiction, it appears to be imperative to join two causes of action in the District of Columbia, where it is already being heard by Honorable Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia Honorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth. There has to be a Quo Warran to determination, regardless to Mr. Obama’s place of birth, whether he is eligible to serve as US President and Commander in Chief, as he had since birth split allegiance citizenship of multiple countries: Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia. Such Quo Warranto action will dispense with H.R. 3590, as it would be deemed signed by an ineligible party and it would dispense both causes of action.

Read the rest of this entry »

by JR Dunn

How great a chance do we have to overthrow ObamaCare in the courts? To answer that question we need to look into that bleak pit of falsehood and mendacity that America’s left would like us to ignore at all costs, the historical record.

We need to look at the original effort to nationalize the American economy, the one attempted by Obama’s model, Franklin D. Roosevelt, by means of the New Deal. FDR was never quite clear about what he wanted to do. He was clear about the goal, but not about how to get there. Not unlike Obama, he left that problem to various retainers, in this case the members of the Brain Trust.

The two key Brain Trusters were Adolf Berle and Rexford G. Tugwell. Both men were professors at Columbia, and both were of one mind concerning the solutions to America’s economic problems: collectivism, centralization, and state control.

Berle was the author (with economist Gardner Means) of The Modern Corporation and Private Property, an influential economics text still read today. According to Berle, the American corporation had gone out of control and could only be tamed through government intervention. Tugwell had traveled to the USSR and fascist Italy and liked what he saw. Of Mussolini’s Italy, he said, “It’s the cleanest… most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.” So overwhelmed was he that he was moved to put his feelings into poetry:

I have gathered my tools and my charts. My plans are finished and practical. I shall roll up my sleeves… and make America over.”

YOU MUST READ THE LAST paragraph to appreciate what JR is saying about Obamacare and the present day Supreme Court. Fascinating!

CLICK BELOW to expand:
Read the rest of this entry »

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Attorneys general from 13 states sued the federal government Tuesday, claiming the landmark health care overhaul is unconstitutional just seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed it into law.

The lawsuit was filed in Pensacola after the Democratic president signed the 10-year, $938 billion bill the House passed Sunday night.

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit says.

Legal experts say it has little chance of succeeding because, under the Constitution, federal laws trump state laws.

THE ABOVE STATEMENT MADE BY AN AP REPORTER IS PROPAGANDA. Who are these legal experts? The rights of the people and the States TRUMP the Federal Government. Federal laws that violate the Constitution are simply laws written on toilet paper. The only reason the government gets away with these unconstitutional laws is that STUPIDITY loves misery. People are like sheep and they follow the crowd and listen to the liberals who will take care of them for life. “Just vote for me. I will promise you anything and deliver you nothing.”

On last thing. The liberals in this country won’t pay for this Healthcare Obomination. These freeloaders expect government and the working middle class to pay for it. I heard people yesterday on the MSM communist airwaves talking about how it is so great that the government will now give us FREE healthcare.. We can just pay a co-pay and will be taken care of for life. Dream on! You show me one liberal that enjoys paying for social welfare and I will show you a true hypocrite. It is always the bleeding heart liberal that wants to spend your money telling you how to live your life.. These libtards are scum.. lower than scum. [Bob Campbell, AGJ]

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is taking the lead and is joined by attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho, Washington, Colorado and Louisiana. All are Republicans except James “Buddy” Caldwell of Louisiana, a Democrat.

Some states are considering separate lawsuits — Virginia filed its own Tuesday — and still others may join the multistate suit. In Michigan, the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, a Christian legal advocacy group, sued on behalf of itself and four people it says don’t have private health insurance and object to being told they have to purchase it.

McCollum, who is running for governor, argues the bill will cause “substantial harm and financial burden” to the states.

The lawsuit claims the bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs.

“No public policy goal — no matter how important or well-intentioned — can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by our Constitution,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement.

The lawsuit also says the states can’t afford the new law. Using Florida as an example, the lawsuit says the overhaul will add almost 1.3 million people to the state’s Medicaid rolls and cost the state an additional $150 million in 2014, growing to $1 billion a year by 2019.

“We simply cannot afford to do the things in this bill that we’re mandated to do,” McCollum said at a press conference after filing the suit. He said the Medicaid expansion in Florida will cost $1.6 billion.

“That’s not possible or practical to do in our state,” he said. “It’s not realistic, it’s not right, and it’s very, very wrong.”

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is also running for governor, said the lawsuit was necessary to protect his state’s sovereignty.

“A legal challenge by the states appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government,” he said.

McCollum said he expects the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually decide if the overhaul is constitutional.

“This is not lawful,” he said. “It may have passed Congress, but there are three branches of government.”

Some states are looking at other ways to avoid participating. Virginia and Idaho have passed legislation aimed at blocking requirements in the bill, and the Republican-led Legislature in Florida is trying to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ask voters to exempt the state from the federal law’s requirements. At least 60 percent of voters would have to approve.

“This is the first time in American history where American citizens will be forced to buy a particular good or service,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is also president of the National Association of Attorneys General, explaining why his state joined the lawsuit.

No Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate voted for the bill.