By Matt Holdridge
Citizens and legislators in Ohio are exploring three different avenues to block aspects of the recent health care reform bill.
The first, like other states, is a lawsuit arguing the constitutionality of the bill as it relates to the states. However, an Ohio State University law professor is not optimistic about its chances.
Based on arguments put forward Tuesday by two partner attorneys for the law firm Baker Hostetler who are serving as outside counsel on the complaint, the lawsuit will argue that Congress does not have the authority to force people to buy health insurance, penalize them if they don’t buy it and cannot give itself new powers in violation of the 10th Amendment.
Sources say the justice department is ready to vigorously defend the bill, which many pundits declared dead but which rose from that graveyard to now become the law of the land.
Dan Tokaji, Associate Director of Election Law @ Moritz, said in a telephone interview today from New York City that, broadly speaking, the lawsuit is not likely to be successful, based on the broad powers the Constitution gives Congress to regulate commerce.
Tokaji, whose areas of expertise include election law, civil rights, and federal courts, said that while he would not hazard a response to the second argument put forward by plaintiff attorneys — that the penalty for those who don’t buy insurance violates the Constitution’s tax-apportionment clause — his immediate response, given without benefit of thorough study of the lawsuit, was that the case should not be upheld at the federal level.
The second tactic for blocking is an amendment is a ballot initiative that would nullify the affect of the health care reform bill at state level. It’s hard to say whether the voters in the economically depressed state of Ohio would approve such a measure.
…The Ohio Liberty Council (OLC), a statewide coalition of 25 grassroots groups, say they will circulate petitions to collect enough signatures – 402,275 valid ones by June 30 to be precise – to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would block some provisions of the federal health care bill – The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – from becoming effective in Ohio.
In statement released Monday by OLC, its leader Chris Littleton said, “”The Ohio Liberty Council seeks to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health-care coverage. With the passage of untenable national mandates on health insurance, the federal government is trampling on the direct constitutional authority and responsibility of state legislatures. This constitutional amendment will do what our leaders in the Statehouse have failed to do – protect Ohioans from federal mandates on personal behavior.”
Finally, a more conventional approach is being pursued by two Ohio senators. They’ve introduced a bill to protect Ohioans from the federal mandates.
Ohio State Senators Shannon Jones (R-Springboro) and Tim Grendell (R-Chesterland) announced Tuesday that following passage of federal healthcare legislation that will have a tremendous impact on the state budget and Ohio taxpayers, they will introduce a bill designed to protect Ohioans from federal mandates regarding their health care.
As the Examiner points out:
So the battlefield to win on may necessarily be moved from Washington to the states, which will only refuel the centuries-old debate regarding the powers invested by the Constitution to the federal government and whether they violate rights given to states.
The question is, who will come out on top. The answer to that may largely depend on us.