Jackson Free Press

Friday, Gov. Haley Barbour joined the multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal health-care bill passed by Congress earlier this year. Barbour is moving ahead with the suit despite Attorney General Jim Hood's refusal to do so earlier this year.

"The Health Care Law passed earlier this year is an unprecedented expansion of federal power," Barbour said in a statement. "If Congress can constitutionally mandate that we all purchase health insurance, it can also force every American to buy a car or to invest in Treasury Bonds."

In his statement, Barbour also claims that the new legislation will cost the state to raise taxes to cover the additional enrollees in Medicaid; however, advocates of the bill say the federal government will pick up those costs.

Florida, the lead plaintiff in the case, has reached an agreement with its legal counsel to cap the costs of the litigation at $50,000. Joining in the lawsuit will cost Mississippi a fraction of that amount, the statement said. Michael B. Wallace of Wise Carter, Child and Caraway, P.A., will guide Mississippi's role in the lawsuit, and Mr. Wallace has agreed to provide his expertise at no cost to the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the federal government's right to impose economic activity in the past. The 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn addresses a dispute between farmer Roscoe Filburn and the mandates of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 requiring farmers to purchase a certain amount of animal feed from another farm, as opposed to growing the feed on their own property.

In that case, U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress' right to regulate local production of wheat logically connected to Congress' goal of stabilizing wheat prices in the Great Depression by restricting the supply of wheat produced and used by individual farmers.

"[T]he courts have long held that the government can accomplish indirectly what it can do directly. In the case of health insurance, if the government could require individuals to participate in a government health insurance program paid for by a tax on individuals, it can achieve the same result by requiring the purchase of private insurance" wrote Robert J. Martineau, distinguished research professor of law (emeritus) at the University of Cincinnati in The Herald Tribune in March.

Other critics of the 13-state suit against the federal government's health-care bill point out that the state of Mississippi already forces drivers to purchase auto insurance from a private company.

Previous Comments

ID

157856

Comment

This is probably no more than a symbolic action by the governor; a display of that same ol' 'against the Beltway' schtick mandatory for politicians, especially conservatives, who plan on advancing their political careers. Our Attorney General was right in his view that this will probably wind up in the Supreme Court anyway, why waste taxpayer money?

Author

jamesparker

Date

2010-05-17T11:10:08-06:00