{"id":693,"date":"2011-07-25T13:05:13","date_gmt":"2011-07-25T17:05:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/?p=693"},"modified":"2011-07-25T13:06:23","modified_gmt":"2011-07-25T17:06:23","slug":"obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html","title":{"rendered":"ObamaCare Legal Challenge Grounded in the Constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>In May, I told you about an important brief we filed at a federal appeals court<\/a> urging that our federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare go forward.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Today, we filed an additional brief that bolsters our argument. In this brief, posted here<\/a>, we reject the Justice Department’s position that the individual mandate is constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause.\u00a0<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,\u00a0we argue the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional:<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

“There is no American tradition of forcing unwilling individuals to operate a business or buy a good or service in the name of ‘regulating commerce,’ and it is not a coincidence that the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause cases upholding regulation under the ‘substantial effects’ test have involved the regulation of ongoing commercial or economic activities, unlike Section 1501. Nothing in law or logic supports Defendants’ novel extension of this federal regulatory authority to mere inaction, decisions, or thought processes that relate to an economic topic.”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

“Defendants’ arguments based on the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses are flawed and lack legal support,” the brief asserts.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We also contend that the Department of Justice has done nothing to demonstrate that the constitutional rights of two of the plaintiffs have not been violated by the individual mandate provision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The brief contends: “Defendants have not shown that Plaintiffs Lee and Seven-Sky failed to sufficiently allege that Section 1501 substantially burdens their religious exercise, nor have Defendants shown that the individual mandate, as applied to Lee and Seven-Sky, is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The fact is that our legal challenge targeting the pro-abortion, government-run health care law is grounded in the Constitution<\/a>. Conversely, the arguments put forth by the Department of Justice are legally flawed and, quite frankly, lack support in the text, history, or related Supreme Court jurisprudence of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As you may recall, in our initial brief filed in May<\/a>, we urged the appeals court to reverse a lower court decision which dismissed our lawsuit:<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

“The individual mandate is unconstitutional because it exceeds even the outermost bounds of Congress\u2019s Article I authority and is inconsistent with the constitutional system of dual sovereignty that divides power between the federal and State governments,” the brief contends. “Under the Commerce Clause, Congress cannot ‘regulate’ inactivity by requiring individuals to buy a good or service as a condition of their lawful residence in the United States. . . .”<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In our lawsuit<\/a>, we represent four U.S. residents and federal taxpayers:\u00a0 Susan Seven-Sky from New York, and three Texas residents – Charles “Eddie” Lee, Kenneth Ruffo, and Gina Rodriguez.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Oral arguments before the federal appeals court are scheduled for September 23rd. The Constitution and Supreme Court precedent are clear: the health care law oversteps the authority of Congress. The individual mandate is at the heart of this law. It is constitutionally flawed and we believe ultimately will render the entire health care law unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We are confident we will prevail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In May, I told you about an important brief we filed at a federal appeals court urging that our federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare go forward.   Today, we filed an additional brief that bolsters our argument. In this brief, posted here, we reject the Justice Department’s position that the individual mandate is…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":401,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[65,66],"tags":[743,231,234,67,6,235,155,233,70,764,236,232],"class_list":["post-693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-obamacare","category-u-s-constitution","tag-aclj","tag-appeals-court","tag-brief","tag-commerce-clause","tag-constitution","tag-court-of-appeals-for-district-of-columbia-circuit","tag-federal-lawsuit","tag-forced-health-insurance","tag-individual-mandate","tag-obamacare","tag-oral-arguments","tag-rfra"],"yoast_head":"\nObamaCare Legal Challenge Grounded in the Constitution - Faith & Justice<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"ObamaCare Legal Challenge Grounded in the Constitution - Faith & Justice\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In May, I told you about an important brief we filed at a federal appeals court urging that our federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare go forward.   Today, we filed an additional brief that bolsters our argument. In this brief, posted here, we reject the Justice Department’s position that the individual mandate is…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Faith & Justice\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-25T17:05:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2011-07-25T17:06:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/07\/shutterstock_80531203-150x150.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"ObamaCare Legal Challenge Grounded in the Constitution - Faith & Justice","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"ObamaCare Legal Challenge Grounded in the Constitution - Faith & Justice","og_description":"In May, I told you about an important brief we filed at a federal appeals court urging that our federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare go forward.   Today, we filed an additional brief that bolsters our argument. In this brief, posted here, we reject the Justice Department’s position that the individual mandate is…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html","og_site_name":"Faith & Justice","article_published_time":"2011-07-25T17:05:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2011-07-25T17:06:23+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/07\/shutterstock_80531203-150x150.jpg"}],"author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html","name":"ObamaCare Legal Challenge Grounded in the Constitution - Faith & Justice","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/07\/shutterstock_80531203-150x150.jpg","datePublished":"2011-07-25T17:05:13+00:00","dateModified":"2011-07-25T17:06:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/#\/schema\/person\/fd4c384af0620d4b82ae09cf1d77bdb4"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/07\/shutterstock_80531203-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/faithandjustice\/files\/2011\/07\/shutterstock_80531203-150x150.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/2011\/07\/obamacare-legal-challenge-grounded-in-the-constitution.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"ObamaCare Legal Challenge Grounded in the Constitution"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/","name":"Faith & Justice","description":"Jay Sekulow - ACLJ","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/#\/schema\/person\/fd4c384af0620d4b82ae09cf1d77bdb4","name":"Jay Sekulow","description":"Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law. He is also Chief Counsel of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow is one of the leading defenders of constitutional rights and religious liberties in the United States. Over the past 25 years, Jay Sekulow has amassed an unparalleled record of accomplishment, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court on 12 occasions. His aggressive litigation strategy before the Supreme Court has led to many landmark First Amendment victories. In his first case before the Supreme Court, Jews for Jesus, Jay Sekulow secured the right of religious groups to pass out tracks in airports. In Mergens, Jay Sekulow successfully protected the right of students to form Bible clubs and prayer groups on public school campuses. In Lamb\u2019s Chapel, Jay Sekulow cleared the way for churches to have equal access to public facilities in the same way that other groups are permitted to utilize those facilities. In the Bray and Operation Rescue cases, Jay Sekulow protected the free speech rights of pro-life advocates to be free from criminal prosecution for conveying their pro-life message. In McConnell v. FEC, Jay Sekulow protected the right of young people to engage in the political process by donating to the campaign of their choice. In Pleasant Grove, Jay Sekulow paved the way for governments to be able to display Ten Commandments monuments, and other monuments of their choosing, in public parks. Through the ACLJ, Jay Sekulow engages the political, legal, and cultural battles facing America today. He routinely works with Members of Congress, advising them on proposed legislation and representing them in critical legal matters. Jay Sekulow has also testified before Congress on the constitutionality of proposed legislation. Also, in addition to being a successful Supreme Court advocate, Jay Sekulow is a highly respected broadcaster. Jay Sekulow is the host of Jay Sekulow Live! which airs each weekday on over 850 radio stations nationwide, in addition Sirius and XM satellite radio. He brings insight and education to listeners daily through this national call-in radio program. He is also the host of the ACLJ This Week, the ACLJ\u2019s weekly television program. Jay Sekulow regularly appears on major media outlets, including FOX News, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, where he is sought out for his vast experience in constitutional law and his unique insight into many of the pressing legal and political issues facing America today. He is frequently quoted in the nation's leading newspapers and often contributes opinion editorials to national publications. Jay Sekulow has also published numerous law review and other scholarly articles. Jay Sekulow has received numerous honors for his groundbreaking legal work in the area of free speech and religious liberties. The Legal Times has named Sekulow one of \u201cThe 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 Years\u201d and the National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \u201c100 Most Influential Lawyers\u201d in the United States. In addition, TIME Magazine listed Jay Sekulow as one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America. Jay Sekulow\u2019s legal work in defense of religious liberties and human rights extends beyond the United States, having founded the ECLJ in Strasbourg, France, which maintains consultative status with the United Nations. He has also opened offices in Pakistan, Africa, and Jerusalem, Israel. Jay Sekulow is a staunch defender of Israel, presenting arguments before the International Criminal Court at the Hague. His efforts in support of Israel\u2019s right to defend itself from terrorist attacks have been commended by Israeli government officials, one official stating, \"Jay was instrumentally-involved in projects that the President of Israel and the Prime Minister put on our national agenda.\" Jay Sekulow also has a passion for educating the next generation of religious liberty advocates. He is a member of the Regent University Law School Faculty as a Distinguished Professor of Law and routinely teaches courses on constitutional law and presents guest lectures. Jay Sekulow has also started educational programs in international human rights law in Strasbourg, France and at Handong University in South Korea. Jay Sekulow is a graduate of Mercer University, earning both a bachelor\u2019s degree and doctor of jurisprudence. Sekulow served on the editorial staff of the Mercer Law Review and graduated cum laude. He later earned a Ph.D. from Regent University, writing his dissertation on American Legal History. Jay Sekulow also serves on the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, D.C. Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsels full biography and video. Jay Sekulow on Facebook. Jay Sekulow on Twitter. Jay Sekulow on YouTube.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/author\/jay_sekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/693","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/401"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=693"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/693\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":706,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/693\/revisions\/706"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/faithandjustice\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}