Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman, who has a few days left to enjoy that position, issued the following statement in response to the December 13, 2010, ruling on the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” provision of the Affordable Care Act by federal district judge Henry Hudson:
“There have been almost 20 cases filed challenging health reform. All the others that have come to judgment have been dismissed. We always knew that there was a chance that one or two judges would buck the clear legal consensus that the law is constitutional, just as some judges once ruled that Social Security was illegal.
“But one way or another, this question is clearly headed to the Supreme Court. When it gets there, I am confident that cooler heads will prevail and that the health reform law will be upheld in full.”
He also had something to say about the results in Cancun:
“The nations of the world have reached a balanced agreement to work to fight global climate change and promote clean energy. This is a good step forward, building on the Copenhagen Accord and setting the stage for further progress as nations take actions consistent with this agreement.”
Republican Representative Fred Upton, of the Sixth District in Michigan, will be replacing Representative Waxman in January as Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Under the headline: “Top priority in the new Congress will be full repeal of the job-killing health care law,” here’s what he had to say about the decision declaring the “individual mandate” to be unconstitutional:
“Today, a U.S. District Court ratified what many Americans have known for the past year: the health care law is not only bad policy, it is unconstitutional as well. This decision strikes a blow for freedom and the enduring constitutional principles of our forefathers.
“When the health care law was being debated, Energy and Commerce Republicans warned that Obamacare represented an unprecedented intrusion by government into the lives of American citizens. At the time, we argued that the individual mandate violated Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause – because it purported to regulate an individual’s ‘inactivity.’ If the government could compel individuals to engage in activities they wished to avoid – such as the purchase of health insurance – what restrictions could there possibly be on government’s power?
“That is why today’s decision striking down the individual mandate is so welcome. While the legal fights over the health care law are just beginning, our Committee will vigorously weigh in and assert our oversight authority to ensure that the federal government is returned to its properly limited role. Our top priority in the new Congress will be repealing the job-killing health care law.
“In the months ahead, we will be holding hearings on the unconstitutional aspects of the health care law and other critical health care challenges facing our nation. In the meantime, we urge the administration to cease and desist its efforts to implement the law and work with Congress on reforms that actually reduce costs for consumers in a free-market, constitutionally permissible manner.”
As this article was published on Friday, December 17th, Representative Upton’s press secretary had not been able to get back to Etopia News with a comment from his boss about the climate conference in Cancun.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
CRC Commissioner Stan Forbes talks about its work
Stan Forbes, a "decline-to-state" member of California's Citizens Redistricting Commission, talks about that group's mission, activities, and plans, in an interview recorded from Sacramento, California, on December 15, 2010
CRC Commissioner Barabba talks about its work
Vincent Barabba, a Republican member of California's Citizens Redistricting Commission, talks about that group's mission, activities, and plans, in an interview recorded from Sacramento, California, on December 15, 2010
CRC Commissioner Dai talks about its work
Cynthia Dai, a Democratic member of California's Citizens Redistricting Commission, talks about that group's mission, activities, and plans, in an interview recorded from Sacramento, California, on December 15, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
A Call for Comments on Proposed CRC Slate
Margarita Fernandez, spokesperson for the California State Auditor's Office, calls on Californians to comment on the proposed slate of six additional members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, recorded from Sacramento, California, on December 13, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Margarita Fernandez updates the Citizens Redistricting Commission story
Margarita Fernandez, spokesperson for the California State Auditor's Office, updates the status and process of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which will now also set Congressional district boundaries, recorded from Sacramento on November 22, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Michael Brady Makes the Case Against In-state Tuition for “Illegal Aliens”
Michael Brady, plaintiff’s attorney in the landmark case of Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, which seeks to overturn the provision in California state law granting in-state tuition rates to what he consistently called “illegal aliens,” spoke this afternoon with Etopia News, He explained his side of the case and said that he plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court the recent unfavorable judgment against his clients from the California Supreme Court.
Under the law, the plaintiffs in this case have 90 days from the November 15, 2010, date of the California Supreme Court’s ruling to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. Brady said that he will probably file that appeal “early in February.” He said “there’s a pretty good chance they’ll take it,” in part because it focuses on the currently hot topic of “federal pre-emption.”
Originally filed in December of 2005, in Yolo County, home of the University of California’s Davis campus, Martinez v. Regents of UC represents the objections of 42 plaintiffs from 19 different states to the fact that they must pay out-of-state tuition rates of more than $35,000 per year, while what Brady calls “illegal aliens” are only charged the much-lower in-state tuition of around $8,000. According to Brady, allowing illegal aliens this benefit costs the State of California $300 million annually.
Brady said that nobody he’s spoken to about this case can understand “how an American citizen can end up paying four times more than an illegal alien” to attend UC. The two major purposes of U.S. immigration law, he said, are to 1) discourage illegal aliens from coming to the U.S. and 2) discourage them from staying here. Granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, he says, clearly “rewards and encourages them to stay here” and thus undermines the basic intent of U.S. immigration law.
According to Brady, the U.S. Congress has said that California is free to offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens, but if it does so, it must also offer it to all U.S. citizens, including those resident outside of California. He said that the decision of the California Supreme Court, which relied for its judgment on a provision of California law saying that illegal aliens were eligible for in-state tuition on the basis of their attendance at California high schools, and not on the basis of their residence in the state, clearly flaunts the “will of Congress.”
He cited as precedent the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that universities are free to bar military recruiters from campus, but at the cost of losing all federal funding, saying that UC was similarly entitled to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, but at the cost of having to extend that policy to all U.S. citizens, regardless of their residency. “You can go ahead,” he said, “but you’ll pay a price.”
The Regents of the University of California don’t want to pay that price, and the California Supreme Court has said they don’t have to. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to consider this case, Mr. Brady will have another chance to argue why they should have to. This case, he said, “has national ramifications. Ten other states have similar laws.”
Under the law, the plaintiffs in this case have 90 days from the November 15, 2010, date of the California Supreme Court’s ruling to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. Brady said that he will probably file that appeal “early in February.” He said “there’s a pretty good chance they’ll take it,” in part because it focuses on the currently hot topic of “federal pre-emption.”
Originally filed in December of 2005, in Yolo County, home of the University of California’s Davis campus, Martinez v. Regents of UC represents the objections of 42 plaintiffs from 19 different states to the fact that they must pay out-of-state tuition rates of more than $35,000 per year, while what Brady calls “illegal aliens” are only charged the much-lower in-state tuition of around $8,000. According to Brady, allowing illegal aliens this benefit costs the State of California $300 million annually.
Brady said that nobody he’s spoken to about this case can understand “how an American citizen can end up paying four times more than an illegal alien” to attend UC. The two major purposes of U.S. immigration law, he said, are to 1) discourage illegal aliens from coming to the U.S. and 2) discourage them from staying here. Granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, he says, clearly “rewards and encourages them to stay here” and thus undermines the basic intent of U.S. immigration law.
According to Brady, the U.S. Congress has said that California is free to offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens, but if it does so, it must also offer it to all U.S. citizens, including those resident outside of California. He said that the decision of the California Supreme Court, which relied for its judgment on a provision of California law saying that illegal aliens were eligible for in-state tuition on the basis of their attendance at California high schools, and not on the basis of their residence in the state, clearly flaunts the “will of Congress.”
He cited as precedent the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that universities are free to bar military recruiters from campus, but at the cost of losing all federal funding, saying that UC was similarly entitled to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, but at the cost of having to extend that policy to all U.S. citizens, regardless of their residency. “You can go ahead,” he said, “but you’ll pay a price.”
The Regents of the University of California don’t want to pay that price, and the California Supreme Court has said they don’t have to. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to consider this case, Mr. Brady will have another chance to argue why they should have to. This case, he said, “has national ramifications. Ten other states have similar laws.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
