Attorney files motion to link eligibility, health-care lawsuits
By Chelsea Schilling
Â©Â 2010Â WorldNetDaily
A California lawyer who has led several of the high-profile legal challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president has filed a motion to intervene in a case by 13 attorneys general contesting the constitutionality of the Democrats’ massive health-care plan.
Attorney Orly Taitz â€“ now a candidate for secretary of state in California â€“ is seeking to link her case and the case against the health-care law, Florida et al vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
In legal documents filed April 6 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Taitz requests an oral argument on the motion to take place April 14 at 9 a.m.
As WND recently reported, Taitz argues, “H.R. 3590 was signed into law by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, who … never proved his legitimacy to the presidency. Therefore the act is invalid, as it was not signed by one legally entitled to sign it.”
Plaintiffs for the case include attorneys general representing the following states: Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho and South Carolina. Virginia has filed an independent suit in a separate action. The complaint lists Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis as defendants.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to:
A. Declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be in violation of Article I of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
B. Declare defendants to have violated the plaintiffs’ rights as sovereigns and protectors of the freedom, health, and welfare of their citizens and residents, as aforesaid;
C. Enjoin defendants and any other agency or employee acting on behalf of the United States from enforcing the act against the plaintiffs, their citizens and residents, and any of their agencies or officials or employees, and to take such actions as are necessary and proper to remedy their violations deriving from any such actual or attempted enforcement
“Movant unlike the Attorneys General is a medical provider directly affected by the Act suing Quo Warranto,” Taitz’ motion states. “Accordingly, there can be no genuine dispute that Dr. Taitz claims a valid interest in the subject matter of the instant action â€“ i.e. whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violates the Commerce Clause.”
It continues, “It is likewise irrefutable that Dr. Taitz is presently ‘so situated’ that a disposition of the instant declaratory judgment action will significantly, if not completely, impair her legal interests.”
Taitz’ complaint notes that she is a California-licensed doctor of dental surgery and claims the health-care law “imposes an unreasonable infringement upon her gainful employment in dental surgery as overburdening interstate commerce in clear violation of the Commerce Clause.”
“However,” it states, “unlike the attorneys general, Dr. Taitz raises a more fundamental issue, the underlying legitimacy of Barack Obama to sign the act.”