Levin's Landmark Legal Posts Draft Of Slaughter Rule Complaint

A draft of the complaint is available at link.

“Landmark has already prepared a lawsuit that will be filed in federal court the moment the House acts. Such a brazen violation of the core functions of Congress simply cannot be ignored. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is clear respecting the manner in which a bill becomes law. Members are required to vote on this bill, not claim they did when they didn’t. The Speaker of the House and her lieutenants are temporary custodians of congressional authority. They are not empowered to do permanent violence to our Constitution.”

Comments

[jd]

Mark is great. For those-and I am one-who do not get Mark on their radio, he has all of his broadcasts on his website.

[x11b1p]

Thats awesome that Levin is making that kind of cash - good for him.

[SacTownMan]

Typical Non-Sense, ignore the topic of the post and deflect, deflect, deflect.

Uncle George would be proud!!!!

[Terry in Alaska]

Well I guess this will just bring this all to a full stop now.
================================
What does your post have to do with stopping this unconstitutional farce? You make no sense what-so-ever.

[Pat Fornler]

It's only unconstitutional when Democrats do it. Interesting

[Big Black Ricky]

Thanks to Levine the Great One. Isn't it a thing of beauty that he and Rush, and Sean and Beck are making lots and lots of money while fighting for America the beautiful. It is just right, because we will never be able to repay them.

God bless America.

[archer52]

Levin can try, but most scholars are saying this has been addressed already in court in one form or another. Maybe with the level of intrusion it will tilt a court's opinion. It not only violates some personal constitutional rights, but it seems to b-slap the 10th amendment. There is probably a bigger argument on that issue with the states refusing to comply or allowing the feds to force their citizens to comply. When is enough enough? No telling but if this passes we are ten large leaps closer to wherever that point is.

[joyMc]

Dems hanging selves and splattering mess all over the rest of us. disgusting spectacle.

[Simon]

Dan, the case ain't going anywhere. Read the complaint. How do you sue the President of the United States with a 1983 suit?

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant(s) (a) deprived them of a federal right, and (b) acted under color of state law in doing so. But whatever rights Levin will be deprived of should Obamacare pass, no one can seriously argue that the deprivation will be because of state law. There simply isn't any way for Levin to make out a claim under section 1983, and while I realize that this isn't intuitive to non-lawyers, Levin is a lawyer. All lawyers understand what section 1983 does—it's arguably the best-known federal cause of action. So Levin must understands full well that this is a case designed to fail, which makes this not a lawsuit but a press release printed on a complaint form.

[templar knight]

I remember the Medicare Catastrophic Health Care Act of 1988, and the anger that accompanied that particular bad piece of legislation, and I personally think a better responce to the "deem and pass" rule would be to shut the government down. Hound these people wherever they go, never let up until this monstrosity of a health care bill is repealed. It's doable, just as it was in 1988!

[archer52]

Simon's right. It was said early on until somebody is harmed there is no case. Again, maybe at the state's rights issue. However, we have a lot of history of the feds jamming unfriendly statutes down the throats of the states. Maybe the progressives are hoping it will follow suit.

[Steven Den Beste]

I don't understand how they show standing to sue at this time. They have to wait until they have suffered real damage, and that can only happen after the bill goes into effect.

[Dan Riehl]

FWIW - I'm not going to lecture Mark on strategy, or law, as he, most than me and many knows his stuff. I won't even suggest I know the true end game for the action. But I trust his judgement to do what's prudent and what he can to protect the Constitution.

I'm also not suggesting others shouldn't be free to question. I guess we'll see. As for Mikey, I've been to Landmark, know what it does and doesn't and how it does things. While professional, it's far from extravagent, more focused on what matters - with some great guys in the trenches. Mark also works seriously at it, not sure how it does it all. Only a progressive monkey would think he's scoring points by suggesting a man should be prevented the fuits of his labors, especially in a just cause and in a fully disclosed manner in this case. I guess Mikey's just another dumb commie.

[Tcobb]

I don't understand how they show standing to sue at this time. They have to wait until they have suffered real damage, and that can only happen after the bill goes into effect.

Not always--that's what injunctions and the concepts behind it are all about. To use an absurd example to illustrate the principle, if someone is threatening to kill you, it won't do much good if you have to be dead from their hand (sustaining actual damages) before you can sue them.

[Tcobb]

WHOOPS--the bold tags that I put on Mr. Den Bestes' original comment I quoted had no effect. Its the first paragraph of the comment above. Sorry about that.

[Steven Den Beste]

Re standing:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

I guess they could try for "injunctive or declarative relief". But if they really do file as soon as they say, I won't be at all surprised if their suit is tossed because of lack of standing.

[Darth Venomous]

"I was expecting you to make a much more robust case for Levin here, but this is pretty weak."

What, because _you_ say so? Most of us here think you're a dumb@$$, remember?

[Dan Riehl]

MIke's an idiot - five guys? lol Yeah, lawyers capable of writing and making arguments at the SCOTUS level. My Gawd!! You mean they actyally cost money?

He's a dope most would ignore, if not for the fun of slapping him around.

[Simon]

The difficulty with standing—assuming that they rewrite their complaint atop an apposite cause of action—is that it's hard to see what "injury" Levin suffers from the bill in abstracto. He's a taxpayer, but taxpayer standing is allowed only in a very limited subset of Establishment Clause cases. See Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007). Beyond that, the court has repeatedly held that "a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-4 (1992); see Lance v. Coffman, 127 S.Ct. 1194 (2007).

[DarthRove]

Glad somebody is planning for reversing the ObamaCare monstrosity if it comes to pass, but not sure if posting the draft before Demonpass comes about is good judgment. Why give the enemy access to your planning?

Oh well, Levin et al. are a helluva lot smarter than I am. That's why they make the big bucks!

[Mike2Cents]

Hit a nerve with this one...so Dan deletes all my posts.
Can't delete this link, though...

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=510203802&yr=200812&rt=990&t9=A

[mark l.]

mike, where can i find out how much the southern law and poverty center pays julian bond, it's new director?

the way I heard it, the center was near collapse, so they went to bond to get money. apparently morris dees couldn't finance his foundation.

you'd have thought libs would be sending the guy cash...

i guess with the exorbitant salary levin draws, they'll be out of commission, soon. ;)

[Mike2Cents]

mark l.,
You should be able to find that by searching for the form 990...pretty easy if you Google it.
And my hope is that conservatives aren't sending Levin's org cash..just for their own sense of dignity.