Immediately following the March 23, 2010, signing by president Obama of the Obamacare Healthcare package, three state Attorneys General filed suit and 13 other states are considering the same.

Their legal arguments against the Obamacare federal expansion and control of all American healthcare will consist of a Constitutional composite:  Charges that Congress has far exceeded its limits of the Commerce Clause, that the federal government cannot compel and individual citizen to purchase a good or service from a public or private company, that Congress cannot force an unfunded mandate upon the states that will bankrupt them, that the law was passed in an unconstitutional manner.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been abused to the point of absurdity in the case of this Obamacare law. However, this is nothing new.

The Founding Fathers intended the Commerce Clause to “make regular” commerce between the states, thereby preventing any one state from maintaining a monopolistic control of a resource, service or good with which it could extort control over the other states. But for the last hundred years the Progressives in our courts have upheld that the Commerce Clause is to be interpreted as a broad license of power with which the federal government can control every aspect of interstate commerce, even to the point of absurdity.

Thusly, the federal government has been empowered at all levels with the, now widely held belief, that it can even regulate the faucets of your home, your toilets, your liquor, your cigarettes, your guns, your utilities, your phones, your food, the CO2 of which you breathe—and now your healthcare.

Added to this is the parallel interpretation of the courts regarding the requisites of an individual or group of citizens in exercising their Constitutional right of redressing a grievance of government, to require something known as “Standing”.

“Standing” as originally intended is a legal paradigm whereby non-legitimate plaintiffs that have not suffered any harm may not piggy-back onto a lawsuit in which they have no vested interest.

For example, if Fred did something to Joe, and Joe sued Fred, Sally cannot claim an injury because Sally has no standing in the case. Sally would have to prove that she suffered harm when Fred did something to Joe.

However, like the Commerce Clause, the Article 3 Standing requirement has been expanded to encompass almost ANY redress of grievance against government.

Anyone familiar with the 17 lawsuits that have alleged that putative president Barack Obama is not an Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 defined “Natural Born Citizen” is also aware that in every case, the lower federal courts have ruled that the plaintiffs had no “Standing”.

In the most recent Kerchner v Obama case, the government made the following argument:

In October 2009, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ suit. App. 2. The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to press their claims, as they had not established an injury in fact that was sufficiently concrete and particularized to satisfy the requirements of Article III. App. 8. The court explained 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.’” App. 9 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-74 (1992)).

I think the 13 state Attorneys General are all in for a very big surprise when they go to sue over Obamacare and find out that they “have no standing”.

Outrageous? Certainly. But you see, according to the definition of “standing”, Obamacare affects the public at large and the Attorneys General are going to have a dickens of a time proving any “concrete and particularized” harm.

Only Virginians have a chance of squeaking by the Standing Clause.

Governor McDonnell of Virginia had the intelligence to pass into law the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act which states that “no Virginian can be forced to buy health insurance or pay a penalty if they refuse insurance”. Because of this law, only Virginians have legal standing against the Federal Dictatorship.

The failure of these lawsuits to defend individual and state’s rights will kill the idea of the Tenth Amendment. Gone also are your civil rights, your 2nd Amendment gun rights, and more.

The pundits are right on this one: the Constitution has been shredded. And it may be very difficult to get her back.