healthcare america cbsistock Group Fights Health Reform In Detroit CourtA group fighting the constitutionality of health care reform took their case to federal court in Detroit Wednesday.

Attorneys for the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor are representing four individuals who object to being forced by the federal government to purchase health care or face a federal penalty. They say Congress exceeded its authority by approving the health care legislation.

In response to the lawsuit, the Obama administration said the Law Center and four individuals have no standing to sue because they cannot show they are likely to suffer any harm as a result of the implementation of the reforms.

This is the second of 20 cases challenging provisions in the Health Care Reform Act, the first was filed by the state of Virginia.

This case in Detroit Federal Court is being filed on behalf of four plaintiffs, one of whom is Brighton attorney John Ceci.

“When the whole debate started I realized right away if this requirement to buy health insurance passes, I’m going to have to buy health insurance, and I don’t have any health insurance right now,” Ceci said.

“It’s a deliberate decision I’ve made and I felt like, ‘How can the government force me to buy something whether I want to or not?'” Ceci said.

Not doing so could mean paying penalties.  Ceci figures that if he needs medical care he’ll pay out-of-pocket, as he’s done in the past.

In addition, federal attorneys contend that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

Attorney Robert Muise, of the Thomas More Law Center, argued in federal court on behalf of his plaintiffs.

“We think that this is beyond any authority that Congress can find in the Constitution,” Muise said.

Muise also argued that if Congress can mandate purchase of health insurance, what’s to stop the legislative body from also mandating something like buying a health club membership.

The response also said plaintiffs’ claims that the provision falls outside of both Congress’s authority over interstate commerce and its power to tax and spend for the general welfare “are flatly wrong.”

There is no word on when the court will issue an opinion.  Judge George Steve told the parties he would get back to them as soon as possible.

(Copyright 2010 by WWJ  All Rights Reserved.)

  1. Jack Jordan says:

    The Obama Administration continues to talk from both sides of its face. Initially, it stated that forcing citizens to purchase health care or be fined was not a tax but authorized under the Commerce clause. Suddenly this week, his legal team is stating that this is a proper use of the taxing authority of the federal government. As a lawyer, I have never seen a law that mandates (forces) a citizen to buy something for just breathing. I’ve heard the example of auto insurance, but that example isn’t applicable, as one is required to obtain insurance when someone decides to drive a car. There is a vast difference between the two situations. I would like to know where in the Constitution is that written and what case law can they point to in support of this law??

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Watch & Listen LIVE