Obama Administration Hypocrisy - Feds Can Challenge State Law. States Cannot Challenge Federal Law.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So apparently state's cannot challenge Federal Law/Constitutionality on behalf of the people on Health Care:

But in a 39-page brief filed late Monday in U.S. District Court, attorneys acting on behalf of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius wrote that Virginia's law was an attempt to nullify the federal statute and did not create the legal conflict necessary to enable the state to sue.

"If states could manufacture standing in the way Virginia attempts to do here, every policy dispute lost in the legislative arena could be transformed into an issue for decision by the courts," they wrote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052404073.html?hpid=moreheadlines

BUT

the Federal Government can challenge State Law/Constitutionality on behalf of the people.

Staff attorneys within the Justice Department recently sent higher-ups the recommendation. At the same time, the Justice Department's Civil Division, which oversees the majority of immigration enforcement issues for the department, has drafted a "civil complaint" that would be filed in federal court in Arizona, sources said.

The draft complaint challenges the Arizona law as unconstitutional, saying it is illegal because it impedes federal law, according to the sources, who would not offer any more details about the draft complaint or the arguments made in it.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/25/doj-lawyers-draft-challenge-to-az-law/

I guess the Federal Government should be renamed Supreme Dictators who do not wish to be challenged, but they can challenge whomever they like for whatever their reasoning!

I mean "we the people" only applies to "we" on a Federal Level and states are now irrelevant.

BRING WAR.

[Pooky 3,807]

So apparently state's cannot challenge Federal Law/Constitutionality on behalf of the people on Health Care:

But in a 39-page brief filed late Monday in U.S. District Court, attorneys acting on behalf of Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius wrote that Virginia's law was an attempt to nullify the federal statute and did not create the legal conflict necessary to enable the state to sue.

"If states could manufacture standing in the way Virginia attempts to do here, every policy dispute lost in the legislative arena could be transformed into an issue for decision by the courts," they wrote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052404073.html?hpid=moreheadlines

BUT

the Federal Government can challenge State Law/Constitutionality on behalf of the people.

Staff attorneys within the Justice Department recently sent higher-ups the recommendation. At the same time, the Justice Department's Civil Division, which oversees the majority of immigration enforcement issues for the department, has drafted a "civil complaint" that would be filed in federal court in Arizona, sources said.

The draft complaint challenges the Arizona law as unconstitutional, saying it is illegal because it impedes federal law, according to the sources, who would not offer any more details about the draft complaint or the arguments made in it.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/25/doj-lawyers-draft-challenge-to-az-law/

I guess the Federal Government should be renamed Supreme Dictators who do not wish to be challenged, but they can challenge whomever they like for whatever their reasoning!

I mean "we the people" only applies to "we" on a Federal Level and states are now irrelevant.

BRING WAR.

I'd rather bring doughnuts, thank you.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'd rather bring doughnuts, thank you.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Oh and this:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, Clause 2

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The issue isn't the state law, the issue is the fact that the Feds are saying on one hand - "we'll sue you for making laws" and at the same time saying "you can't sue us for making laws"

They're acting like they are supreme overlords...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The issue isn't the state law, the issue is the fact that the Feds are saying on one hand - "we'll sue you for making laws" and at the same time saying "you can't sue us for making laws"

They're acting like they are supreme overlords...

Well... they are. You can't implement laws at a local level that fundamentally undermine the constitutional fabric of the nation.

Perhaps Arizona should cede from the union if they really disagree with the constitution that much... At the very least they would be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than grandstanding all over the show.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well... they are. You can't implement laws at a local level that fundamentally undermine the constitutional fabric of the nation.

Perhaps Arizona should cede from the union if they really disagree with the constitution that much... At the very least they would be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than grandstanding all over the show.

Figuring the several states that have been working on sovereignty laws, then they'd have support.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

“The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.” -Hugo Black

hehe

[Obama 2012 1,714]

“The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.” -Hugo Black

hehe

we're not talking about what "is" or "isn't" constitutional.

We're talking about the ability to file a lawsuit to challenge laws.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

we're not talking about what "is" or "isn't" constitutional.

We're talking about the ability to file a lawsuit to challenge laws.

If you want it your way, you'll first need to delete the supremacy clause of the constitution, which basically would make it worthless.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you want it your way, you'll first need to delete the supremacy clause of the constitution, which basically would make it worthless.

The supremecy clause has nothing to do with being able to sue the Federal Government.

We're talking about challenging the constitutionality of a Federal Law.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The supremecy clause has nothing to do with being able to sue the Federal Government.

We're talking about challenging the constitutionality of a Federal Law.

Yes but in this case the suit is based on a recently passed a law saying the federal government can't require Virginia residents to buy health insurance. Right?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yes but in this case the suit is based on a recently passed a law saying the federal government can't require Virginia residents to buy health insurance. Right?

They passed a law saying that individuals in the state could not be forced to buy insurance period.

While federal law might supercede state law in most cases, the only thing that Virginia is saying is that their law is being used as part of their argument.

The other part is that the mandate is unconstitutional and they want to challenge that (as do others).

The part that's messed up here is this quote as I quoted above:

"If states could manufacture standing in the way Virginia attempts to do here, every policy dispute lost in the legislative arena could be transformed into an issue for decision by the courts," they wrote.

She's basically saying it's unacceptable for someone to challenge Federal Law and any attempt to do so should be put to a stop because then other policies might be challenged.

Every law should have a right to be challenged in the courts if someone truly feels it's misplaced. Saying no to challenging Federal Laws opens up a can of worms that is quite dangerous.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They passed a law saying that individuals in the state could not be forced to buy insurance period.

While federal law might supercede state law in most cases, the only thing that Virginia is saying is that their law is being used as part of their argument.

The other part is that the mandate is unconstitutional and they want to challenge that (as do others).

The part that's messed up here is this quote as I quoted above:

"If states could manufacture standing in the way Virginia attempts to do here, every policy dispute lost in the legislative arena could be transformed into an issue for decision by the courts," they wrote.

She's basically saying it's unacceptable for someone to challenge Federal Law and any attempt to do so should be put to a stop because then other policies might be challenged.

Every law should have a right to be challenged in the courts if someone truly feels it's misplaced. Saying no to challenging Federal Laws opens up a can of worms that is quite dangerous.

If Obama tries to dismiss the lawsuit from the other 20 states I will agree with you, but this sounds to me like their asking it to be dismissed on the basis that it is invalid to argue State Law against Federal Law.

To me it seems Virginia would have been wiser to not have passed that law and instead enter the suit with the other 20 states.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Sousuke