Moot Court Brief

The Freedonia Public Library wants the Healthcare Act passed by Congress to be repelled because it violates states’ reserved rights; which is on the basis of the Tenth Amendment. This Healthcare bill in its original form used much improvements and compromises to get passed. Some say it was due to partisan politics. Others say it was signed into law by the president knowing the law was virtually inconceivable, but there are many guidelines in the Constitution that this bill did follow. This law virtually already existed as law. This bill is a justification for all employees (state and non-state) to receive a minimum healthcare package. Instead of wasting anymore time, we will move right into the Constitutional provisions that outline the case of the Freedonia Library vs. United States.

It is Congress’ implied power on behalf of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution of the United States to pass this Healthcare bill. These implied powers’ state that this act of Congress involving healthcare is within its means of legislation. The enumerated powers are given to Congress by the Constitution. The enumerated powers are those delegated powers expressly given to the national government in Article 1, Section 8. The implied powers are those that were granted to congress by the Constitution to do what ever is necessary and proper in order to carry out one of the express powers. These express powers include appropriating funds (Burns 45). In this Healthcare Act, Congress is making sure the money in this Act is distributed to the right member, including all local government entities. The Healthcare Act is within Congress’ implied powers to carry out. Congress is not infringing on the states’ government because the only powers for the states are those reserved for the state or for the people. This issue is not reserved for the state because it is Congress’ implied power by the necessary and proper clause, which makes national laws superior to state laws. With all the powers that are granted to Congress by the Constitution, this should show the library that the Healthcare Act is a national government issue. The power to appropriate funds was granted to Congress and the National government, not to the states. Since this deals with appropriating fund, there is no way the states can think this is their territory. According to the United States’ brief, the states have no preexisting rights. The only rights that they have are the ones reserved to them. Based on the powers delegated to the national government, the states have none of those to be able to say that the law of Healthcare should be reserved to them.

The library says, “What may have been a traditional government function in one state or one part of the country may not have been elsewhere, meaning that stare sovereignty has manifested itself in a variety of ways.” If we based everything on this, applying with the Tenth Amendment, then if this is passed toward the library, then it would have to become a traditional function for all states and all local governmental bodies. There are thousands of libraries, and we are sure that some libraries will want this, since there was no exceptions for the local governmental bodies with this Healthcare Act.

There seems to be no concern about the employees who will be compensated by this Act. No one is thinking about the employees of these local governmental bodies. This would benefit the employees so much. It seems that all this library is worried about is “money.” The library thinks that it will cost them too much money, but if you do not accommodate this local governmental body, then you cannot accommodate any. This will hurt thousands of people, but no one seems to care if it hurts the people. Clearly the library knows what the Tenth Amendment says, since that is their whole argument. They seem to be missing key words and phrases in this amendment. We will state this amendment to pick up on what key phrase the library is missing:

Amendment X

The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people (US Constitution).

This clearly states that these rights are reserved to the states or to the people. The employees of these local governmental bodies are people who these rights are reserved. These people should not, and under the Constitution, cannot be discriminated just by being local government employees. Their rights should no more be denied then any other employee covered under this Healthcare Act. The people are the ones who comprise these sovereign states, and without the people there would be no need for the existence of these sovereign states. In the case of the library, the Tenth Amendment seems to be a contradiction to their whole case. The Tenth Amendment cannot be an “affirmative limitation” on Congress with accordance to federalism. If the Tenth Amendment is an “affirmative limitation” on Congress, then the basis of the library’s accusations; it is also one on the people. The Bill of Rights, in accordance with the United States’ brief, is a set of protections for individuals. The individuals, who are the ones greatly affected, are all the employees who will be affected by the Healthcare Act.

In the matter of the Commerce Clause, as is what the bases for the decision in Garcia vs. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), 469 US 528, 1985, it will strictly will uphold the courts decision in Garcia and withstand in this case. In the case of Garcia, the Tenth Amendment does not apply as a constitutional limitation on the power of Congress granted in the Commerce Clause. It has been stated that the authority of Congress extends to the intrastate activities with direct effect on interstate commerce. For this matter to have evolved, there was a three part test set up “to determine the implied condition to regulate interstate commerce (www.ill.com). This three part test is:

(1) that the law is not intended to discriminate against another state,

(2) that the substance of law must not be one that requires national or uniform regulation, and

(3) that the interests of the state outweigh those of the federal government’s right to regulate commerce on the matter at issue.

This was determined in the case of Southern Pacific vs. Arizona, 325 US 761, 1945. The library is considered part of commerce since it is a local governmental entity, and since the government keeps libraries funded for the public to use. Therefore, Congress has to regulate the way the library works because it is commerce. Under the Commerce Clause Congress has the power to regulate post offices and post roads. Libraries work like post offices and post roads by providing public services for all people. Post offices and post roads are considered traditional governmental functions. The library is considering itself as a traditional governmental function; therefore, Congress can lay regulations down for the library.

By the three parts that determine the regulation of interstate commerce, the courts would go against the whole three- part test by deciding for the library. Since libraries are in every state and interact, exchange books and other information among themselves, they have to be considered in this three- part test. The first part of the test would be shut down because the library would be discrimination against another state. It would be discriminating against another state that preferred the Healthcare Act and who agreed with Congress’ approach on it. The biggest part is the second part of the test, which the library would be going against, because this Healthcare Act does require national and uniform regulation. For God sakes, it is a Healthcare Act for all employees who receive a W-2. It does not take a rocket scientist to see how this uniformed throughout the states. With the third part of the test, we know the interests of the state do no outweigh those of the federal government. Just look at how many people who will be affected by the Healthcare Act. Definitely more than just libraries will be affected. Congress’ regulation on interstate commerce shows that according to the Constitution, this Healthcare Act must pass. It only would be unconstitutional if it did not.

According to the Legal Report published by the Society for Human Resource Management, the managers, supervisors, and the company can be liable for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA was discussed in the Garcia case, which the library wants the courts to strike down. In Garcia it showed that the San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA) had to follow in accordance with the FLSA. The SAMTA is a public transportation authority like the library is a public authority. What makes the FLSA any different then the Healthcare Act? They both acts deemed at the provisions of the employees. The FLSA was passed and is used everyday in all employment; even traditional government functions. If Congress can regulate wages , overtime pay, record keeping and child labor standards, then Congress had the right regulate healthcare. The Garcia case in coincidence with the FLSA, have Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce with the due process of the commerce clause.

Since Garcia 469 US 528 was decided by an unanimous opinion by the court, clearly shows that the court does not need to rethink and open back up the case of National League of Cities vs. Usery, 426 US 833, 1976. Congress used the commerce clause to pass the Healthcare Act, as the Commerce Clause was there to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act to be constitutional in the Garcia case. The commerce Clause is a dead giveaway of Congress’ power to implement these laws. Following the Commerce Clause in Article 1 Section 8. The last line confers that Congress has the power to pass all laws that deem as necessary and proper. This Healthcare Act is necessary for employees due to the benefits that they will receive. It will knock out HMO’s and keep them from getting in and only allowing employees so much care and certain physicians to go see. It is proper because it took long and debatable compromising to get to the decision of the Healthcare Act. We have stated the facts and have demonstrated how the Healthcare Act follows the guidelines of the Constitution. It is only right to follow in due process of the law by saying this Healthcare Act is constitutional.