Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0LSHNfmnWDnZ_JylqiFxeT5GKEQD9EGLNDO0

Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan
By JOHN MILLER (AP) – 1 day ago

BOISE, Idaho — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.

But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.

Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.

Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

(More at the link)

 

I am quite sure that if SCOTUS hears such a case, the law would be struck down.

I am not so sure SCOTUS will hear the case.

 

Yes, having at least 1 republican legislator in 37 states is quite a grass-roots movement.

barfo

 

I think you only need 3/4ths of the 57 for a constitutional amendment, though. So really only 6 more to go.

barfo

 

barfo

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTQARvST4dv8

Supreme Court precedents nonetheless raise questions about the practice. In a 1983 case, the court said the federal government’s legislative power could be exercised only “in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.”

In that case, a 7-2 court invalidated a law that let a single house of Congress vote to overrule the attorney general and force deportation of an alien.

‘Finely Wrought’

The high court reiterated the “finely wrought” language in the 1998 ruling, a 6-3 decision that struck down a congressionally enacted line-item veto, which would have let the president eliminate individual spending provisions.

As part of the ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said the Constitution “explicitly requires” that the House and Senate approve the exact same text.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/cuccinellis_office_confirms_vi.html

Cuccinelli's office confirms Virginia will sue over health care

A spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) said this afternoon that Virginia will file suit against the federal government if the Democratic health care reform bill is approved by the U.S. Congress.

Cuccinelli has long said he was examining the legal issues and suggested he would likely file suit. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the office, said this afternoon that a lawsuit is now a definite. Gottstein would provide no details of the legal rationale for such a suit, indicating the process is "still being worked out."

Virginia last week became the first state in the country to pass a state bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key part of bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.

We are also expecting to receive a letter shortly that Cuccinelli is sending to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warning her that using the so-called "deem and pass" procedure to pass the Senate health reform bill in the House would open the measure to additional constitutional challenges from the states.

UPDATE: We've received a copy of Cuccinelli's letter to Pelosi. In it, he writes: "Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge."

 

I think the mandate to buy insurance may pass muster because there is an option to pay a $1500 fine instead, which is within the govt.'s power to tax.

However, the precedent is absurd.

Elect me for president and I'll pass a law that makes everyone buy "Barfo's Chili" - tastes as good going down as it does coming up!

 

I strongly support you for president.

barfo