Labeling lawsuits launched against the landmark health care reform as “politically-motivated,” Harkin said in statement that he was sure the U.S. Supreme Court would find the law constitutional.

Here’s Harkin’s full statement:

“I’m pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to promptly resolve conflicting lower court decisions concerning the Affordable Care Act. These politically-motivated lawsuits are a waste of judicial resources, and an unnecessary distraction from the important work of moving ahead with implementing the health reform law.

“I am confident that the Court will uphold the Act’s constitutionality, affirming the common sense notion that, as a Republican-appointed D.C. Circuit judge wrote last week, the Constitution gives Congress the power to ‘forge national solutions to national problems.’ Virtually all Americans will use health care, whether or not they choose to purchase insurance. Thus, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make that marketplace fairer and more affordable. The Affordable Care Act does just that.

“I look forward to the Court ending this period of legal uncertainty, allowing us to focus on expanding coverage and improving health care quality for all Americans.”

Gov. Terry Branstad is among Republican officials from 26 states and a small business advocacy group that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the entire law. SCOTUS announced Monday that it would hear the case.

A lawsuit hoping to repeal landmark health care reforms will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and a decision will likely be handed down in advance of the 2012 general election.

The U.S. Supreme Court announce Monday that the justices will hear a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in late winter or early spring of 2012. Specifically, the justices will be asked if a requirement within the law that mandates health insurance or financial penalties is proper.

Once oral arguments have been made before the court, any decision should be made public by the end of June 2012.

“One of the things I’m most passionate about is the usurpation of authority the judiciary has done over the last couple decades in this country,” Santorum told a crowd of about 50 in Urbandale.

Santorum said it’s clear to him the U.S. Constitution gives the judicial branch the least power because it’s listed third in the articles, after the legislative and executive branches. He also questioned whether the Constitution allows for courts outside of the U.S. Supreme Court, and said the two other branches established those courts.

“They can establish them, and if those courts violate the Constitution and do things that they should be stopped from doing, they have the power to repeal those courts, to abolish these courts,” said the Pennsylvania Republican.

The “poster child for rogue courts” is the 9th Circuit, he said, accusing it of rewriting the Constitution. He wants to break the 9th Circuit into two or three separate courts and replace all the judges.

“This will be a very important signal to be sent to the judiciary that they are an equal branch of government, not a superior branch of government,” Santorum said, seemingly contradicting earlier statements.

And while Santorum said he’s “not a big fan” of Constitutional amendments, it’s the only thing that’s left “when the courts have run roughshod.” He wants amendments to ban same-sex marriage and abortion.

“Since they amended the Constitution by legal decision, they only way to legitimately turn around and overturn this interpretation of the Constitution is to clarify it for them and let them know exactly what our country wants,” he said.

He called the Roe v. Wade decision “a legal fiction” that says “not all human life are people.”

“Well we know for a fact that at the moment of fertilization we have an entity that is a unique human being with its own unique DNA and that it is alive,” Santorum said. “Therefore by any biological definition it is a human life, and as a human life it should be treated with the same dignity of all human life in our society.”

He called for a Constitutional amendment defining personhood as the moment of fertilization.

“My proposal is let’s help out the United States Supreme Court determine what a person is, since they seem to have such a hard time figuring that out,” Santorum said.

The case, KFC Corporation v. Iowa Department of Revenue, questioned if the company, which owns no restaurants or employs no person directly in the state, could be held liable for property taxes on its licensed franchises. Attorneys for KFC launched the suit, arguing that an earlier U.S. Supreme Court case that found a mail order vender with no physical address in North Dakota to be exempt from paying sales and use taxes under Commerce Clause law also applied to company that had no physical assets in Iowa.

In an Amicus brief by Washington, D.C.-based Tax Executives Institute, Inc. attorneys for the organization held that the key issue of the case was if a state could impose a corporate income tax on a business with no connection to the state other than having customers.

Since the Court’s 1992 decision in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which sustained a taxpayer challenge under the Commerce Clause, states and taxpayers have been left unassisted in their efforts to interpret and apply these limits. The resulting clutter of vague and inconsistent standards has undermined the protections of the Commerce Clause.

In December 2010, as part as one of the last opinions generated by three earlier ousted Iowa Supreme Court justices, the court explained that the U.S. Supreme Court would likely look at income benefits above physical presence in deciding if the state could hold a company accountable, and essentially created a state standard of “economic presence” to usurp the SCOTUS assertion of “physical presence” established in Quill.

Finally, we think taxation of the income here is most consistent with the now prevailing substance-over-form approach embraced in most of the modern cases decided by the Supreme Court under the dormant Commerce Clause. When a company earns hundreds of thousands of dollars from sales to Iowa customers arising from the licensing of intangibles associated with the fast-food business, we concluded that the Supreme Court would engage in a realistic substance-over-form assessment that would allow a state legislature to require the payment of the company’s fair share of taxes without violating the dormant Commerce Clause. …

In fact, “physical presence” in today’s world is not “a meaningful surrogate for the economic presence sufficient to make a seller the subject of state taxation.” … “Physical presence” often reflects more the manner in which a company does business rather than the degree to which the company benefits from the provision of government services in the taxing state. Does it really make sense to require Barnes and Noble to collect and remit use taxes, but not impose the same obligation on Amazon.com, based on the difference in their business methods? …

Further, extension of the “physical presence” approach in [the earlier SCOTUS ruling] would be an incentive for entity isolation in which potentially liable taxpayers create wholly owned affiliates without physical presence in order to defeat potential tax liability. … We doubt that the Supreme Court would want to extend such form-over-substance activity into the income tax arena where substance over form has been the traditional battle cry.

In essence, the Iowa Supreme Court offered that a lack of subsequent rulings along the same lines as the earlier SCOTUS decision held as proof that the nation’s High Court saw the need for greater interpretation by states, given the current technologically-driven economic climate. And, given SCOTUS’s refusal to weigh in on the issue, it appears the Iowa Supremes were on target with their belief.

The end result for the Kentucky-based KFC Corp. is that it will now need to cough up the nearly $250,000 it owes in back income taxes from 1997 and 1999.

In separate appeals, the coalition of states and the National Federation of Independent Business said the entire health reform law should be set aside because Congress exceeded its authority. Under the law, Americans are given the option of purchasing health care insurance or paying a penalty.

The next SCOTUS term begins next week and continues through June 2012. The appeals made the case that a decision should be rendered quickly by the court — an argument that is also expected from the U.S. Department of Justice, which is charged with defending the law. Even if the case is fast-tracked and decided prior to the 2012 general election, however, there is little chance of it disappearing as a campaign trail issue.

The NFIB contends that it represents 350,000 small businesses in the U.S. It joined the states, which are led by Florida, in challenging the reforms.

“Until this court decides the extent to which the [reform] survives, the entire nation will remain mired in doubt, which imposes an enormous drag on the economy,” reads the NFIB petition. Similarly, the states’ petition cited a need for resolution to allow state government and budget planning.

Earlier this week, the DOJ chose not to ask the 11th Circuit to reconsider its earlier ruling, which has expedited the challengers’ petitions before SCOTUS.

At key issue is an August ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which struck down the portion of the law requiring health insurance or a penalty, but allow the remainder of the legislation to stand. In doing so, the appellate court rejected the GOP attack of the law as an expansion of Medicaid, which provides federal and state government-subsidized care to low-income Americans.

Although the government lost in the 11th Circuit, it has prevailed in two other appellate courts, and is expected to file its own petition to SCOTUS.

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad added Iowa to the Florida-led lawsuit in January — nearly a year after it was originally filed. The states of Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Maine also joined the suit at roughly the same time.

Additional plaintiffs are South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska and North Dakota.

In a web seminar sponsored by the Business Ethics Network last week, groups concerned about the role of money in politics gathered to review strategies for increased disclosure.

Norm Ornstein, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, who once helped craft the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, said that he was struck and “even a little bit heartened” by the fact that Sarah Palin railed against crony capitalism during her Labor Day speech in Iowa saying, in effect, “what do we suppose those fat cats want for their money?”

“It suggests to me,” Ornstein said, “that there is at least a glimmer of a possibility that we might be able to build a very unusual type of coalition against what has become an utterly appalling landscape of influence peddling by enormous monied interests and more and more overt, almost shakedown schemes by political figures to get the money they want from corporations and individuals.”

The Citizens United decision did not strike down any rules that require disclosure of political spending, but loopholes in the tax system and lax campaign finance rules allow corporations to give money in ways that are very hard to track, disclosure advocates say.

According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2010 election 67 percent of all outside (non political party) spending came from groups that had been freed to contribute by the Citizens United decision with non-profit 501(c) groups dominating spending on election ads.

IRS rules state that 501(c)(4) groups don’t have to name their contributors as long as electioneering is not their primary purpose, but this can be difficult to enforce in a meaningful way. Groups can form and carry out campaign work and then later switch to other activities so that political projects don’t appear to dominate their activities.

With Congress deadlocked over most issues, campaign finance reform advocates say it’s more prudent to focus on promoting regulatory measures that could increase disclosure.

One possibility would be to get the IRS to enforce its requirements for 501(c)(4)s. Another would be to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to require publicly traded companies to report their political spending to shareholders.

Aside from the way it could corrupt the political process, experts point out, unregulated corporate spending on politics poses risks for company shareholders.

Ten corporate law academics recently petitioned the SEC to adopt rules to require that corporations communicate with shareholders about political use of corporate funds.

The idea has support from major institutional investors including the International Corporate Governance Network, which represents $18 trillion in assets.

Any rule change at SEC will be a time consuming process. In the meantime some groups are trying to get corporations to voluntarily release information about their political spending.

Since 2003 the Center for Political Accountability has been working to get companies to establish rules for disclosure of political spending and shareholder oversight.

Valentina Judge of CPA said that such resolutions are good business practices that can protect companies from embarrassing contributions that can cause reputational damage.

The Target corporation learned the pitfalls of political donations last year, she pointed out.

The company endured bad press and boycott threats after it made a $150,000 donation to a group that supported a candidate opposed to gay rights.

CPA is preparing to release an index of corporations that have adopted policies on corporate spending.

It’s urgent that groups focus on disclosure strategies that could work fast, said Craig Holman of Public Citizen.

“We just was a 427 percent increase in outside spending in the 2010 election,” he said, “This is a phenomenal increase … and this was just a test run, a trial. Corporations and CEOs were just starting to get involved and were pretty cautious.”

In the 2012 elections, he said, “I believe we are going to see numbers that are off the charts.”

The only thing that could force more disclosure right away would be an executive order from President Obama, he said.

“We need President Obama to step up to the plate and sign an order requiring enhanced political disclosure for contractors to show that contracts are being based on merit and not contributions.”

Another short term effort could involve getting the president to appoint a Federal Elections Commissioner who would work to require funding disclosure on television ads, said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.

The most pressing need, however, she said, is is a public education campaign to translate the current situation around corporate funded politics into terms that meet average Americans.

“You have to build a public base before you can get into specific answers,” she said. “The pot is not yet boiling.”

“The reality is that the other side that is supporting this outcome is outgunning the reform community and those that see the problem by a million to one,” she said. “It doesn’t mean give up. It means you’ve got to start thinking about 21 century solutions and approaches.”

Russ Feingold

“This was a difficult decision, as I thoroughly enjoyed my tenure in the State Senate and the U.S. Senate, and I know that progressives are eager to reverse some of the outrageous policies being pursued by corporate interests at both the state and federal levels. I am also well aware that I have a very strong standing in polls should I choose to run again for the U.S. Senate or in a recall election for governor. After 28 continuous years as an elected official, however, I have found the past eight months to be an opportunity to look at things from a different perspective,” wrote Feingold.

The Wisconsinite lost his reelection bid during the 2010 elections, and announced in February that he had formed a grassroots PAC, Progressives United, which is primarily intended to push back against the U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC.

He has also been teaching law at Marquette University Law School — something he told supporters “was a joy” — and has penned a book that is slated for publishing next February. It traces how the U.S. has “too often lost our way as a nation in responding to the 9/11 attacks and related issues,” and he plans to speak throughout the nation on the topic in 2012.

“The one thing many of us did not anticipate at the outset of this year was the extreme assault on the working families of Wisconsin in particular and the nation as a whole,” he wrote. “I was happy with some of the results of this year’s Wisconsin state senate recall elections, and I was glad to be able to play a small role in supporting all of the Democratic candidates.”

In 2012, he says he’ll work for the reelection of President Barack Obama, but following the actions of Gov. Scott Walker, he says he also understands that “retaking the state governments from these corporate-backed operatives” must be a priority.

“The entire political climate is more infected by the domination of very wealthy individual and corporate interests than perhaps at any time in our nation’s history. That is why I founded Progressives United, an organization devoted not only to overturning the Citizens United decision but to challenging those involved in the political process who, for short-term political gain, are willing to seek and accept unlimited corporate contributions. This practice should be strongly opposed regardless of party and regardless of whether I otherwise support these candidates,” he said.

“In many ways, this is the overriding political struggle of our time. It is more important than whether or when one person runs for office again. That is why, at this time, I am devoting my primary political energy to this cause and this organization.”

The Nov. 2 gala, to be held at the Newseum in Washington D.C., is intended to celebrate AUL’s 40th anniversary in the presence of about 80 federal lawmakers.

Co-chairing the event with Perry are U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.); the keynote speaker has yet to be confirmed.

AUL has listed as “honorary hosts” 16 U.S. senators — all Republicans — including Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John McCain (Ariz.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). Among the 63 U.S. House representatives listed as “honorary hosts” are 2012 GOP presidential contenders Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.). Other attending GOP representatives influential in the anti-abortion rights movement include Reps. Trent Franks (Ariz.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Cliff Stearns (Fla.) and Allen West (Fla.).

Reps. Renee Ellmers (N.C.), Bill Huizenga (Mich.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.) and Chris Smith (N.J.) all participated in last month’s press conference about the report AUL drafted to encourage Congress to investigate — and then defund — Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

AUL’s gala is a pricey affair: The organization is asking supporters to become sponsors — for $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 in order to offset the costs of the event.

In a recent lengthy profile on Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, the Christian Science Monitor describes how Yoest — who is not a physician, attorney nor lawmaker, though she has a doctorate of philosophy in government — has become “Public Enemy No. 1″ for abortion-rights advocates. In November, the group will celebrate its influence on select laws, such as defending the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court and establishing the “intellectual groundwork” for the fetal homicide legislation that has passed in 38 states.

Despite four decades of lobbying and drafting model legislation to enact abortion restrictions throughout the country, much of the national recognition AUL has earned has come in 2011. Yoest’s group has taken credit for 22 of 86 anti-abortion laws enacted this year, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

In February, Mother Jones blamed AUL for controversial laws cropping up in Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota that, if interpreted in a certain way, would have allegedly legalized the killing of abortion providers. AUL denied the accusation, claiming that however lawmakers might have adapted AUL’s model “Pregnant Woman Protection Act” was out of the organization’s control.

Ten days after the AUL gala, Yoest will set sail as a guest speaker on a National Review-sponsored cruise.

As of yet, Perry has not signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s highly-publicized anti-abortion pledge, but in other ways, Perry has already presented himself as an ardent abortion opponent and dedicated evangelical Christian. Perry’s relationship with AUL has been positive since he became governor of Texas in 2000. When AUL released its annual “Defending Life” publication of model legislation, Perry’s testimony was used to promote the publication:

This state-by-state scorecard of progress in the effort to defend life lets elected officials, grassroots activists and citizens know exactly where we are on our shared priority. I am proud that the report reflects the sweeping reforms we have enacted in Texas, saving thousands of lives in the process. This is not a book you leave on the shelf to collect dust. This information is ammunition in a fight that is far from over. I know you will find this guide informative and useful as you continue to promote and protect life in your state.

In AUL’s latest “State of the States” report card, Texas ranked fifth — making it one of the most restrictive states regarding abortion rights.

In May, Perry signed a controversial Texas bill into law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours after seeing a sonogram of their fetus. The law is facing litigation. He also signed into law a bill making “Choose Life” license plates available to Texas drivers, directing the revenue from those plates to state crisis pregnancy centers.

According to a recent analysis by NARAL Pro-Choice America about Perry’s abortion-related legislative record, “many of the laws he signed inject political interference into women’s private decision-making.”

Among the highlights of Perry’s record, NARAL noted that the governor signed a proclamation declaring April 2009 “Abortion Recovery Awareness Month” in Texas.

Although the courtroom itself, which is filled with rich wood tones, should be warm, its lack of comfort startles. High-backed and hard church-like pews are reluctantly filled with observers. A thigh-high fence and gate separate the court actors from those watching. On either side of the room several unidentified but obviously important starched men stand guard in oil paintings. At any moment, it seems, one might produce a ruler or leather strap to smack the backs of offending hands.

The pain and frustration radiating from those sitting silently on both sides of the hard pews swirls hotly around the room. It might as well be 1993, the year this particular case began.

On one side of the courtroom sit the friends and family of Jason Means, a 34-year-old inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison. On the other side are the friends and family of Michelle Jensen, a Davenport teen who died in August 1993 from a single shotgun blast to her head.

In 1994, when Means and five additional teens were found guilty of crimes in connection with Jensen’s death, both sides believed most of the legal uncertainty was behind them. Means, then 17, was found guilty of first degree kidnapping, first degree robbery, second degree murder, criminal gang participation, conspiracy to commit robbery and unauthorized possession of an offensive weapon. In Iowa, a conviction on the kidnapping charge alone mandated a prison sentence of life without parole.

Two other young men — one 17 and the other 18 — were also given prison sentences of life without parole. The three remaining teens, who testified for the prosecution, were given lesser sentences. Two have since been given parole, but have committed subsequent crimes that have placed them back behind bars.

Although there was an appeal launched by Means’ legal counsel shortly after his sentencing, it was always considered to be a long shot.

“After a certain amount of time, you resign yourself to the fact that this is the way it is going to be — that the rest of your son’s life will be spent in prison,” Cheryl Clark, Means’ mother, said in an interview with The Iowa Independent.

But a May 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Graham v. Florida, appears to have mandated a different fate for Means and Tony Hoeck, the other 17-year-old sentenced to life without parole.

“I saw a news item about the court decision on the internet,” said Means’ uncle Brad Cook, “and I immediately called Cheryl. I thought this was it — that there finally might be some hope. I thought it was a miracle, and it was made all the more special because the decision was dated on Jason’s 34th birthday. It was hope.”

The court found that sentencing juvenile offenders to life without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses is a violation of the “cruel and unusual” clause of the Eighth Amendment.

“A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity,” the court said in its ruling. “Incapacitation cannot override all other considerations, lest the Eighth Amendment’s rule against disproportionate sentences by a nullity.”

The court specifically stated that while such a juvenile offender is not given a “guarantee to eventual freedom,” the law does require the state to provide “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.”

Slow wheels of justice

While at first glance the Graham decision may appear as open-and-shut on matters involving those convicted of non-homicide offenses as juveniles, most cases remain tied up in the courts as states interpret and apply the ruling.

According to the Graham decision, there were 129 such juvenile offenders serving throughout the U.S. Of those, 77 were incarcerated in Florida, the remaining 52 scattered across 10 states. There are an estimated eight such cases in Iowa, including one that was decided in December 2010 by the Iowa Supreme Court.

It was, however, the Means’ case that paved the way for the Iowa challenges as well as challenges in other states. Means, represented by Davenport attorney Angela Fritz Reyes, brought a motion of illegal sentencing before U.S. District Court in Scott County just days following the High Court decision. After requesting and reviewing a supplemental brief on the retroactive application of Graham, U.S. District Court Judge Gary D. McKenrick ruled that the case was a new rule of substantive law that should be applied to previous cases and, more specifically, should be applied to Means’ 1994 conviction.

In September 2010, McKenrick struck the portion of Means’ sentence that prohibited the opportunity for parole, leaving Means to “serve the remainder of his natural life in the custody of the director of the department of corrections, however the defendant shall be subject to parole consideration.”

According to information provided by Reyes in court last week during a continuation of the motion on illegal sentencing, despite the judge’s order Means continues to be denied an opportunity to appear before the parole board or be provided a future date for such a hearing. McKenrick agreed to send an additional copy of his earlier order to the Department of Corrections, but otherwise denied issues brought by Reyes related to the 1994 sentencing of Means. The attorney indicated she would be appealing, a process that will likely culminate in another court hearing in several more months.

State lawmakers are also considering their own proposals to bring the Iowa Code in line with the Graham ruling, but even if such a proposal becomes law, it is unlikely that it could be applied to the Means’ case or other old cases already before the court. The law doesn’t allow courts to revisit sentences if the end result would be an increased in the severity of the sentence. As it stands now, with the prohibition of parole removed, the sentences faced would be reduced to life with an immediate eligibility of parole — which is, in all likelihood, far less than what would codified for future cases.

Punishment vs. maturity

“It would mean a great deal for Jason to have that hearing,” his mother, Cheryl Clark, said. “He should have an opportunity to stand before the parole board and present himself — how he has changed and what type of a person he is now.”

Steve Clark, Jason’s step-father, added that “he’s not the same person now that he was at 17.”

Of course, from the family’s perspective, getting a hearing before the parole board is only the first step. They want Means released on parole, able to once again join society and be productive. If the standards set forth in the Graham ruling guide the decisions facing the parole board, the family believes Means will have a true opportunity to be released. They praise the initiative he’s shown for years, long before anyone had hoped that he might one day be eligible for a parole hearing.

“He’s not been a trouble-maker in jail,” Cook said. “He’s studied and worked, and completed everything he possibly can while in prison. When the court talks about someone being able to ‘demonstrate growth and maturity,’ that is what Jason has done and is doing.”

Outside of the courtroom, however, Cheryl Dittmer continues to grip a framed photograph of her late daughter Michelle so hard that her knuckles match the marble floor. Since 2008, she’s watched and protested as three of the teens convicted in connection with her daughter’s murder have been paroled. She isn’t ready to witness another.

“I agree with the premise of Graham,” Dittmer told The Iowa Independent after the hearing. “I believe that there should be an opportunity for a juvenile to show they’ve grown and changed — but not in this case.”

On Thursday, The Iowa Independent will highlight the legislative response to the Graham decision in part two of this series.