Delegate Bob Marshall Files Amicus in Virginia vs. Sebelius

MANASSAS, VA - As a representative elected by the people of my district and as chief patron of the Health Care Freedom Act, I thought it my responsibility to demonstrate this Assembly's strong support of the action taken by our Attorney General to defend the constitutional rights of each Virginia citizen to make their own choice of health care and healthy living, and not to be forced by the Leviathan in Washington D.C. to live the way some unelected bureaucrat would require us to live. What did we say to the Court of Appeals that was not already said by the Attorney General? The Attorney General's basic argument was that Obamacare's mandate that every American purchase a health insurance policy or plan approved by the bureaucrats was unconstitutional and, therefore, the entire Obamacare statute was unconstitutional. As you know in the district court the Attorney General won only the first argument -- that the individual mandate was unconstitutional — leaving the rest of it in place.

Our strategy was different. We argued that Obamacare in its entirety was unconstitutional and for that reason the individual mandate was unconstitutional. If our point is upheld, then all of Obamacare -- not just the individual mandate -- is unconstitutional.

What did we argue that the Attorney General did not?

  • First, we contended that Obamacare is NOT a constitutional regulation governing commerce in which private businesses and individuals are engaged — but a constitutionally-impermissible government take-over in which the government itself is engaged in the health care and wellness business.
  • Second, we demonstrated how Obamacare is actually designed to work -- with the Secretary of Health and Human Services functioning as if she were a CEO of a large corporation, making management and control decisions, rather than government regulatory ones.
  • Third - we presented to the court evidence that during the budget reconciliation process by which Obamacare became law, the Obama administration slipped in a public option enabling the government to go into the health insurance business and more favorable terms than any private insurer.

Did we make any Tenth Amendment claim different from the one made by the Attorney General? We supported the Attorney General's contention that matters concerning the health and welfare of the people of Virginia belong to the Commonwealth and have not been delegated to the United States government. We added, however, that Obamacare forces individuals to pay for one kind of healthcare shutting out millions of Americans who rely upon alternative medicine -- such a homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal medicine, and dietary supplements -- thereby robbing those individuals of their unalienable right to health care and wellness of their own choosing -- in violation of the Tenth Amendment which secures not just the powers of the states, but the power of the people.

How did we address the technical legal point that the Federal government has made — that the Attorney General has no right to bring this case into court? We urged the Court to go back to first principles of Original Intent as documented in founding documents like the Federalist Papers rather than rely on case precedents. So we called attention to the Federalist papers which establishes the following premises without a doubt that:

  • First, the state government has a right to intervene on behalf of its citizens -- not as parens patriae -- but as covenant-bound to her sovereign citizens to defend them against an out-of-bounds federal government
  • Second, that federal courts have a duty to apply relevant principles of constitutional law that govern the distribution of power between the federal and state and to do so without partiality.

For further information contact Delegate Bob Marshall, 703-853-4213.

###