Posted on 01/08/2010 7:35:50 AM PST by Phil_GA
As I had referenced in a previous posting, lots of State-level resistance is brewing against the congressional healthcare plan, HR3590. Now AmericanGrandJury.org has posted an article summarizing that Alabama Attorney General Troy King has gone on the offensive regarding the "Nebraska Compromise."
What is the premise of the compromise? According to one of Mr. King's pressers:
The "Nebraska Compromise," as it is being called, would ostensibly require the remaining 49 States to recoup the loss of Nebraska's Medicaid payments, and was added to the Senate bill in return for the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (D). With the addition of Senator Nelson's vote, the Senate's Health Care Bill was able to move forward with the required 60 votes.In other words, as Sean Hannity terms it, "Cash for Cloture."
[SNIP]
According to Mr. King, not only did Mr. McMaster say "no" to Sen. Nelson, but essentially retorted with a "hell no:"
"Thursday night, Senator Nelson called South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and offered to give all states their own version of the Nebraska Compromise in return for our attorneys general group calling off the dogs," said King. "Attorney General McMaster's response was exactly correct – we reject Senator Nelson's offer." Attorney General King said that, "this issue has never been about healthcare reform legislation; rather, it is about upholding the Constitution. I cannot stop the United States Senate from making shady deals and passing bad legislation, but I can object to a violation of the Constitution and take actions as attorney general to stop it."...
Where’s MA’s Martha Jokely on this?
I think your rendition of her last name tells it all.
-Phil
I am proud to be a South Carolinian. With one notable exception: Sen. Pansy Graham.
Surely if any one part of the bill is invalidated, the whole bill is. That’s what they voted for. Without those parts they wouldn’t have voted.
Or do they just insert a provision negating that most fundamental of legalities?
They ALWAYS insert a “severability” clause in all their bills.
If any part of this bill/law is deemed unconstitutional, it does not affect the rest of the bill.
This whole deal of suing over the Cornhusker kickback or the Louisiana Purchase is a moot point.
They got their 60, so the damage is done. They only need 51 on the compromised version.
*ping*
You know this will fail because the Senate took a vote declaring the bill was Constitutional! /s
(IN) State Sen. Buck: Attorney General Zoeller To Probe Health-Care ‘Sweetheart Deal’ For Nebraska
http://www.kokomoperspective.com/news/article_19ae3c56-fbba-11de-bf83-001cc4c002e0.html
I’m happy to see Mr. Mimms from Virginia is on-board.
And as long as Mr. Cuccinelli STAYS on board when he takes office I won’t have to make any phone calls to his office (about this issue).
Didn't Harry Reid insert the clause whereby no-future-Senate-no-way-no-how can evah, evah, evah repeal any sort of national health services agency (or whatever the terminology was)?
I guess if I were in Harry's polling situation, I'd go for broke, too...
-Phil
It’s about time the several States stood up to the Feds. We need a major reduction in the size, scope, and budget of the federal government.
The severability clause itself should be found unconstitutional. THAT would fix the problem. It certainly is. Why even have senators vote on a particular bill if the courts can change it. It’s a seperation of powers issue.
It’s still worth fighting the kickback though, for a thousand reasons.
I never thought of it that way,
but a severability clause is simply a
“line item veto”
given to the judiciary.
I think the Dems have this covered already.
How can you litigate something that does not exist?
The Senate has not voted on a written bill as yet, just what COULD be written.
Since there is not really a bill yet, how can it be litigated?
I think the Dems have this covered already.
How can you litigate something that does not exist?
The Senate has not voted on a written bill as yet, just what COULD be written.
Since there is not really a bill yet, how can it be litigated?
I think the Dems have this covered already.
How can you litigate something that does not exist?
The Senate has not voted on a written bill as yet, just what COULD be written.
Since there is not really a bill yet, how can it be litigated?
““line item veto”
given to the judiciary.”
Exactly right. Even the president doesn’t have that.
Don’t forget Gov “Butch” Otter of Idaho. He’s also planning on litigation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.