Iowa Attorney General Letter on Health Care Reform

From: "AG Webteam"
To:
Received: 08 Apr, 10 4:25:15 PM

I want to thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the
Health Insurance Reform Act. There are strong views both favoring and
opposing this landmark legislation. We have received many inquiries,
like yours, about the position of this office on the constitutionality
of the act and whether we would join a minority group of state attorneys
general who are challenging the statute.

We have taken a close look at the act and the constitutional issues
raised in the lawsuit by several attorneys general. Simply put, the
arguments are extremely weak. The health reform bill is clearly
constitutional. Here's why:

First, the argument is raised claiming that Congress does not have the
authority to create a mandate that everyone must have health insurance
because a person refusing to buy health insurance is not engaged in
interstate commerce. However, the United States Supreme Court long ago
ruled that Congress has the power to regulate a matter that is involved
in or affects interstate commerce. This principle of constitutional law
goes back to the classic 1942 case involving the Ohio wheat farmer who
claimed that federal grain marketing quotas could not be applied to him
because all the wheat he grew was used on his own farm. The Supreme
Court said "no" and concluded that his production affected interstate
commerce and could be regulated by Congress.

It is very difficult to deny that health care does not affect
interstate commerce. For example, when people do not have health
insurance and end up receiving expensive treatment in an emergency room,
then all the rest of us end up paying for it, to the tune of billions of
dollars every year. That does affect interstate commerce.

Second, it is argued that Congress is infringing on the sovereignty of
states by mandating that states set up new "health insurance exchanges."
However, this is a serious misreading of the bill which allows states to
set up the exchanges. The federal government would set up an exchange
if a state decided not to do so.

Finally, some critics say Iowa should just "opt out" of the health
reform measures. However, this idea ignores the core concept of the
U.S. Constitution which provides that, if Congress has the power to act,
then the federal action is the supreme law of the land for all
Americans. We fought a Civil War to preserve this principle.

It is important to remember that similar legal challenges were brought
unsuccessfully against other basic social programs that, for decades, have applied to and benefitted all Americans -- Social Security and
Medicare.

In this office, we don't make legal decisions on politics nor ideology.
We make legal decisions on our best reading of the law. Our best
interpretation of the law tells us that there is not a solid legal basis
for this litigation, and pursing this litigation would be a waste of
limited resources needed to represent Iowans in other important areas.

Again, thank you for contacting me with your views.

Attorney General Tom Miller

-------------

Michael Elliott reply:

I understand the Interstate Commerce Clause to allow the Federal government to prevent trade disputes between the States so that they don't lead to eventual war between the States, as per the Federalists Papers no. 6. This is the dealings between States and the Corporations they Charter. Why is there no discussion of the protection of Individual Citizens and their unlimited Rights to contract which the State has no regulatory power over, their power covers issues to ensure that the individual's citizen's contracts are protected not regulated. The people, being the one's who created the State Government would not give their creation the power to subjigate themselves to corporate contracts under the threat of government force, because that would make all private individual's slaves to the Corporations and there could be no rights left for the State to protect. The State would be infact acting in a manner to over throw the power of it's creators(the
People) and claim Master of all through it's chartered Corporations within the State. Private Citizens owe no duty to the State as reminded in the US Supreme Court Ruling of Hale vs. Henckle 1906. Nor does any citizen owe money for debts incurred by other citizens for medical costs. This would violate due process of the law. And if there is evidence that the State has been forcing it's private citizens to pay for the debts of other citizens, then we have a very serious legal issue on our hands here. Namely fraud and extortion. I hope those in State employment have not been taking on any private citizen's or Corporation's debts and requiring the public to pay for it cause that would be a direct violation of the Iowa State Constitution.

ARTICLE VII.
STATE DEBTS.

Credit not to be loaned. SECTION 1. The credit of the state shall not, in any manner, be given or loaned to, or in aid of, any individual, association, or corporation; and the state shall never assume, or become responsible for, the debts or liabilities of any individual, association, or corporation, unless incurred in time of war for the benefit of the state.

So please send a clear and consice reply regarding your previous statements, because I am under the impression that there maybe more serious issues here than first realized, and many State employees might have to face legal suits from the People of the State of Iowa because of State Constitution Violations. I would suggest you be on the right side of this issue, namely your employers(we the people) before you find yourself in a legal suit yourself.

Respectfully,
Michael D. Elliott