Skip to comments.10 states line up to sue over health bill, Florida AG says
Posted on 03/22/2010 3:08:37 PM PDT by tobyhill
Ten states plan to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new health care reform bill, Florida's attorney general announced Monday.
Bill McCollum, the Republican attorney general under fellow Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, told a news conference that the lawsuit would be filed once President Obama signs the health care bill into law. He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
All of the attorneys general in the 10 states mentioned by McCollum are Republican, but McCollum said the lawsuit would be about the law and not politics.
Also Monday, Virginia's Republican attorney general said his state would file a lawsuit challenging the health care bill. It was unclear if Virginia would join the other states or proceed on its own.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Texas should be on the list.
I hear Washington State has joined the states.
>> Fox News reported there were 38 states filing suits <<
Excellent, because 38 is the “magic number” of states than can compel Congress to call a constitutional convention!
He said he'll be joined by his counterparts in Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
Thank you A_Tradition_Continues for that clarification regarding Texas not being on the list.
It is time to take this wayward bull by the horns...
Fixed it. Article V says two-thirds of the States are needed for calling a new Con-Con.
Not that I want to criticize, but the term "Consttutional Conventon" is incorrect. Article V only speaks of "a convention for proposing amendments," and that is a far cry from a genuine constitutional convention.
Please read this essay, which is a primer on how a Convention for Proposing Amendments would work, based on the 1992 law where Congress finally got around to regulating the amendatory process for housekeeping purposes after the surprise ratification of the 27th Amendment.
>> Article V says two-thirds of the States are needed for calling a new Con-Con <<
Thanks! Even better!
(My mistake. I guess it’s 38 states that are required to RATIFY a constitutional amendment.)
Now all we need is for Mark Levin (or somebody with similar legal brilliance) to draft a resolution acceptable to 34 state legislatures. How hard can that be?
So because Article V didn't say "Constitutional Convention" that's not the correct name? Even if you are correct, the average person will refer to it by that name. How about we call a "Type 2 Constitutional Convention" (Type 1 being for a complete rewrite)?
Excellent, because 38 is the magic number of states than can compel Congress to call a constitutional convention!
Because the 1787 Convention actually wrote a new document, there is a belief that another convention would have the same powers, which it would not. A lot of people fear the states assembling in convention, either because they fear a runaway convention, or because they fear a brand new constitution on the Soviet model. Neither are permissable, either under Article V or the 1992 law.
I have to credit Congressman Billybob for giving me an education on concepts such as black letter law and the principle of agency, which are critical in understanding the limited powers of a Convention for Proposing Amendments.
BTW, I believe that the states are so angry that we could see 34 states petition for a convention to address some facet of the relationship between state and federal governments. The trick is for the state legislatures to work together to write identical language for the petitions, lest Congress use slight differences in language to say that the petitions were not on the same subject.
Back in the Eighties, it was a Texas state senator who educated state legislatures on the possibility of ratifying Madison's 1789 amendment proposal to get it belatedly into the Constitution. I would hope that some enterprising state legislator or state attorney general would enter upon a similar effort of education for a possible convention.
As for the substance of your last post, the States should start planning on calling an Article V Convention in case the Supreme Court yields to the Liberal Messiah.
If 38 states can pass a law, why can’t the same 38 ask for a constitutional amendment banning federal interference in health care insurance?
38 states can not only “ask” for an amendment, they can ratify it and make it the law of the land.
That said, I’d settle for 34. That’s what it takes to start a CC and introduce amendments. If they DON’T put any expiration dates in them, it’s only a matter of time until there are 38 ratifications. Then it’s game over for the Communists.
As far as the states petitioning Congress for a convention to address amendments regarding the federal-state relationship, Judge Napitolitano pointed out -- correctly -- that this option would work only if the states were careful in the language used in their petitions. The judge was referring to getting the 16th Amendment repealed, and he was pointing out the risk of writing too general a petition and how it could backfire.
If the states actually amass the critical 34 to force Congress to call an Article V Convention, special elections would be held to elect delegates, and I would hope that FReepers would be the first to file their nominating petitions. I would intend to run for the position of convention delegate in the 1st District of Washington, and if I'm up against 50 liberal nominees, I might actually get to go.
I didn’t think of that. If it happens, this could REALLY get interesting.
Health Care Nullification Legislation
Medicaid/MediCal is a federal program. It is not one authorized by a specific enumerated federal power in the US Constitution. Under what is termed the federal "spending power" to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...," Congress has the ability to "fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money to the States..."
In New York v. United States 505 US 144 (1992), the Court declared: "...'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds.' South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S., at 206. Such conditions must (among other requirements) bear some relationship to the purpose of the federal spending, id., at 207-208, and n. 3; otherwise, of course, the spending power could render academic the Constitution's other grants and limits of federal authority. Where the recipient of federal funds is a State, as is not unusual today, the conditions attached to the funds by Congress may influence a State's legislative choices. See Kaden, Politics, Money, and State Sovereignty: The Judicial Role, 79 Colum. L. Rev. 847, 874-881 (1979). Dole was one such case: The Court found no constitutional flaw in a federal statute directing the Secretary of Transportation to withhold federal highway funds from States failing to adopt Congress' choice of a minimum drinking age. Similar examples abound. See, e. g., Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 478-480 (1980); Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444, 461-462 (1978); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 568-569 (1974); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 142-144 (1947)." and .."if a State's citizens view federal policy as sufficiently contrary to local interests, they may elect to decline a federal grant..."
Under "cooperative federalism," the states may craft their own program as long as it meets minimum federal standards. As Governor Schwarzeneggar recently discovered in court when he tried to cut back on the federal IHSS (In Home Support Services) program, he cannot cut the program beyond the minimum standards set by the feds, but he can eliminate it all together.
The question is, whether the states have the courage to let go of the banana by declining to participate in the federal Medicaid program.
Add Colorado to the list:
Wouldn’t it be great if there was a legislative body who, rather than being elected directly, was appointed to represent the interests of the states? Oh wait, there was.
I think this idea of nullification by the states would last until the Fed Govt started cutting highway funds, school money, or free lunches. Then all the states would jump back in line. States are firmly attached to the teat of Big Govt too.