Governor Parnell Continues Challenge to Federal Health Care Mandates
May 04, 2011
The brief supports Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling on the national health care reform law of 2009, which stated the individual mandate is unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause.
“This case is about the individual rights of citizens and the protections our country’s founders wrote into the Constitution to prevent the federal government from reaching into our lives, homes, and pocketbooks to exercise control,” Governor Parnell said.
The governor agrees with Judge Vinson, who wrote in his ruling: “Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States. … It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate … imposing a nominal tax on tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce … it would be difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.”
“I also have strong concerns about the unintended impacts of the federal health care law on individuals, businesses, and the state,” Governor Parnell said.
Once the 11th Circuit Court issues its ruling, both sides expect the health care law’s constitutionality to be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, likely next year.
On the Web:
Source of News:
E-mail your news &
photos to firstname.lastname@example.org