Here we go; more GOP money grubbing

HEALTH CARE

The Repeal Campaign

Last Tuesday, President Obama signed his landmark health care overhaul -- the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- into law, making it the most extensive social legislation enacted in decades. The President said that with his signature, the law provides "the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care." "Today we are affirming that essential truth, a truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself, that we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations," Obama said. However, shortly after this monumental event, political grandstanding from Republicans in both federal and state governments began to take shape. Within minutes of Obama's signature, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) filed suit in federal court challenging the law and on the same day, 13 other Republican state attorneys general filed a separate federal lawsuit against the new law, arguing that certain provisions violate the Constitution. And in Congress, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced legislation to repeal the President's signature agenda item. Yesterday, the President invited congressional Republicans to try repealing the law. "Go for it," he challenged them. Indeed, Obama has reason to be confident because Republicans in Congress are unlikely to succeed in repealing the Affordable Care Act, and the lawsuits filed by the states' attorneys general have little legal backing.

GOP REPEAL EFFORT 'A SYMBOL': Not only did King and DeMint introduce legislation to repeal the health care overhaul, but many Republicans have also said that repealing the law should be part of the Party's campaign platform for this year's midterm elections. (And of course, Fox News has been eager to promote it.) "Repeal and replace will be the slogan for the fall," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said this week. While some Republicans like Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) have favored only a partial repeal, many others, like Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), want to revoke "the whole thing." However, neither of those two scenarios have any chance of panning out. In fact, some key players in the GOP are candidly acknowledging that their colleagues' new big agenda is mere political gamesmanship. "What you have to do is be politically honest," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "If the Republicans win a majority in the House and Senate next year, they will not be able to repeal the bill. The president would veto it," he said. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said the repeal effort "is more of a symbol." "[Obama] would never sign a repeal law," Kyl said, adding, "We don't have the votes to get it passed right now. We're not going to waste our time on that." Seeming to recognize this reality, other conservatives such as former Tennessee senator Bill Frist, former New York City mayor Rudy Guiliani, and former Bush speech writer David Frum have all cautioned against the repeal campaign.

NO CHANCE FOR STATES' CASE: In their lawsuit, the attorneys general claim that the requirement in the new law that all Americans purchase health insurance "'represents an unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals' and violates several parts of the Constitution, including the taxing power and the clause allowing Congress to regulate interstate commerce." Cuccinelli argued that the insurance mandate violates the Constitution because "at no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service." However, this claim is false. As Center for American Progress Policy Analyst Ian Millhiser noted, "President George Washington signed the Second Militia Act of 1792, which required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase -- at their own expense -- 'a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack'" in case the President ever called them to serve. Other legal experts have said that the states' lawsuits don't stand a chance in court. "It would be surprising if the (Supreme Court) says Congress can't regulate people who are participating in the $1 trillion health-care market," said Stanford University Law School professor David Freeman Engstrom. "The lawsuit probably doesn't have legs both as a matter of precedent and as a matter of common sense." Speaking of the penalties for not carrying health insurance, University of Texas Law School professor Sanford Levinson said that "[a]s a technical matter, it's been set up as a tax. ... The argument about constitutionality is, if not frivolous, close to it."

A WEAK ARGUMENT: To support their argument, the attorneys general cite two cases as examples of the Supreme Court striking down a law for going beyond Congress' power to regulate commerce: United States v. Lopez -- where the Court struck down a law banning the act of bringing a firearm in a school area -- and United States v. Morrison -- where the Court stuck down a portion of the Violence Against Women Act. But as Millhiser has noted, "What these cases have in common is that the laws at issue involved activity that was far less economic in nature than the purchase of health insurance. Neither carrying a gun nor committing an act of violence involves a sale, a market, or an exchange of something of value." Indeed, other state officials appear to recognize the lawsuit's thin grounding. Gov. Jim Doyle (D-WI) told his attorney general in a letter that his request to sue would be denied. "The lawsuit you suggest is a frivolous and political attempt to thwart the actions of Congress and the law of the country," he wrote. As the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky noted, "At least 4 of the 13 AGs are running for higher office (either Governor or Senator) and the rest are up for re-election. Their suits are designed to rally political support, not lay down new legal doctrine." "I will not waste taxpayer dollars on a political stunt," said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, who added that this "gimmick may be good 'tea party' politics, but it's based on questionable legal principles." Georgia's attorney general has also refused to file suit, but Republican Gov. Sonny Purdue plans to sidestep his AG, claiming that "Georgia's state constitution allows the governor to act as attorney general if the elected attorney general fails to carry out the wishes of the governor." And in Nevada, GOP Gov. Jim Gibbons has asked Attorney General Catherine Cortez-Masto to join the lawsuit, but Cortez-Masto's office "said she was waiting to see what kind of changes the reconciliation bill makes before settling on a final decision."
There is nothing civil about civil wars!