Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

INDIANA BECOMES 16th STATE TO JOING LAWSUITS AGAINST HEALTH CARE BILL
Inside Indiana Business ^ | March 29, 2010 | Office of the Attorney General of Indiana

Posted on 03/29/2010 6:35:35 PM PDT by MrChips

Indiana Joins Health Care Reform Lawsuit

InsideINdianaBusiness.com Report

Attorney General Greg Zoeller says Indiana is joining at least 13 other states in a legal challenge to the new federal health care law. He says it is in the best interests of all to raise constitutional questions about the reform package to the United State Supreme Court. Many of Zoeller's concerns are in a 55 page report on the changes, put together at the request of U.S. Senator Richard Lugar. . . . (more)

.

.


TOPICS: Front Page News; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; ag; bhohealthcare; federalism; health; indiana; lawsuit; lawsuits; obamacare; statesrights; tenthamendment; zoeller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
Anyone want to predict the 17th?
1 posted on 03/29/2010 6:35:35 PM PDT by MrChips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MrChips

All the states should joing in the lawsuits, we must keep a united front against odorkocare.


2 posted on 03/29/2010 6:37:40 PM PDT by HerrBlucher (END THE WAR ON LIBERTY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

PING!


3 posted on 03/29/2010 6:38:44 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
Anyone want to predict the 17th?

Here in WI, our AG has to ask the Governor or one chamber of the legislature. He's chomping at the bit though.

4 posted on 03/29/2010 6:41:15 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Islam is incompatible with American traditions and values)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
YES - GO HOOSIERS! (Psst: GO BULLOGS in the Final Four!)

Gov. Mitch was not pleased with the HC bill.

5 posted on 03/29/2010 6:41:50 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Way to go, Indiana!


6 posted on 03/29/2010 6:44:08 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Are you a Twitter activist? Freepmail me & let's talk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I’m glad our AG in Michigan didn’t have to get permission from the fiscal genius of a governor.

She’s disappointed. LOL


7 posted on 03/29/2010 6:44:54 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Hey, the rest of youse guys! All Governors and States Attorney Generals need to check this out:

From #50 on another thread: Obamacare = Huge State Tax Hikes,

and

From #48 on another thread:

The 9th Cir. (San Francisco, of course) has ruled that States cannot cut Medicaid spending because that denies "equal access to healthcare to the poor." So who owns a State's budget process and budget priorities? The feds? Do the feds also directly own the wealth of a State's citizens, through a newfound power to impose individual mandates? If the above are "yes," -- if States have a limited pot of money and the federal government has the power to come in and TAKE ALL OR MOST OF IT -- do States exist in any real way except as administrative pass-throughs for the federal government?

I really hope the Obamacare lawsuits include a discussion of the implications of how the rationale of the 9th Circuit + unlimited unfunded federal mandates, even imposed directly on a state's citizens = TOTAL FEDERAL CONTROL OF A STATE'S BUDGET PRIORITIES.

In fact, Obamacare is forcing Arizona to walk back Medicaid cuts it had scheduled for this year to help stem its budget gap. Arizona wants to spend its money elsewhere. The feds are saying "TOUGH." So who owns Arizona?

Arizona Speaker: Health care has huge impact,

and

Arizona Faces Initial $3.8 BILLION Medicaid Cost Hike.

What about YOUR state?

8 posted on 03/29/2010 6:52:43 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Are you a Twitter activist? Freepmail me & let's talk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

In AZ, the AG refused to join the suit. The Governor said since the AG “would not protect the citizens of Arizona, I will.” She then took action on her own in her capacity as Governor.

She was just on FOX talking about it this afternoon.


9 posted on 03/29/2010 6:53:46 PM PDT by fightinJAG (Are you a Twitter activist? Freepmail me & let's talk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Oh thank God. I’m proud to be a Hoosier.


10 posted on 03/29/2010 7:00:56 PM PDT by CommieCutter ("You wanted the presidency, you got it, now FIX THE DAMN ECONOMY!!!!" ----YankeeReb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG

We should ID the states not involved and try to get to at least 35 and maybe 40. A Tea Party project maybe.


11 posted on 03/29/2010 7:02:28 PM PDT by Frantzie (McCain=Obama's friend. McCain called AMERICANS against amnesty - "racists")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

Wish my state would join them! When is Ohio going to stand up for her citizens?


12 posted on 03/29/2010 7:03:48 PM PDT by GloriaJane (Pro-Choice = Pro-Death........ Pro-Life = Pro-LIFE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
"We should ID the states not involved and try to get to at least 35 and maybe 40. A Tea Party project maybe."

Exactly. We need to get this pushed to at least 30.
13 posted on 03/29/2010 7:03:53 PM PDT by Minus_The_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt; 2001convSVT; 2ndDivisionVet; A_Former_Democrat; A_Tradition_Continues; ...
Thanks Army Air Corps!

Tell The State AG's THANKS For Standing Up For We The People!

In alphabetical order:

Alabama AG Troy King

Colorado AG John Suthers Florida AG Bill McCollum Idaho AG Lawrence Wasden Indiana AG Greg Zoeller Louisiana AG James Caldwell(D) at the behest of Governor Bobby Jindal(R) Michigan AG Mike Cox Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour "asked" his AG to join the lawsuit or he would file the laswuit himself! AG Jim Hood could maybe use some "encouragement" Nebraska AG Jon Bruning Pennsylvania AG Tom Corbett South Carolina AG Henry McMaster South Dakota AG Marty Jackley Texas AG Greg Abbott Utah AG Mark Surtleff Virginia AG Kenneth Cuccinelli Washington AG Rob McKenna NEW Missouri Gov Jay Nixon Missouri Lt Gov Peter Kinder
14 posted on 03/29/2010 7:04:37 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

BUMP


15 posted on 03/29/2010 7:05:33 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
Indiana AG Zoeller's press release on his REPORT TO SENATOR LUGAR:

INDIANAPOLIS - If the Senate health care bill before Congress became law, Indiana would bear substantial costs. The bill would add roughly half a million more Hoosiers to the Medicaid rolls and create unintended consequences for patients, taxpayers and Indiana's medical-device industry, according to the Indiana Attorney General's report on the proposal.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller today submitted his report on the Senate version of the federal health care legislation to Senator Richard Lugar and other members of the Indiana congressional delegation. Under a state law, Indiana Code 4-6-8-2, the Attorney General -- at the request of a member of the delegation -- can prepare a report on existing or proposed federal legislation. Lugar on January 5 submitted a request to Zoeller triggering that law and seeking a specific review of the version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the U.S. Senate passed December 24.

"Our state statute authorizes the Attorney General to provide a report from the perspective of the sovereign State of Indiana on significant federal legislation. Our report to Senator Lugar and the Indiana delegation identifies the legal and constitutional challenges likely to be litigated should this health care bill be enacted into law; and it also highlights the significant impact of this proposed legislation on Indiana. The sheer scope of the bill and some of the provisions that are of an unprecedented nature are examined in our report," Zoeller said. 

The 55-page report Zoeller released was researched and drafted in-house, overseen by Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, with existing attorney and staff resources and without substantial additional costs for the Attorney General's Office. The report examines the constitutionality of the legislation and explores its impact on Indiana.

Among the findings of the Attorney General's report:

1. Constitutionality at issue. Several provisions of the Senate bill raise serious constitutional issues and might be struck down in a court challenge:

. The bill's "individual mandate" requiring everyone to buy health insurance or face a penalty would be unprecedented; never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase any good or service, nor has it regulated inactivity.

. The bill's "Nebraska Compromise" amendment would expand the number of Medicaid participants in all states but fully fund the expansion for Nebraska only, while the other 49 states (including Indiana) would have to absorb additional costs. While courts are properly reluctant to second-guess legislative deal-making, such disparate treatment of one state appears to violate Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the report says.

Zoeller, who worked on Capitol Hill as an aide to then-Senator Dan Quayle in the 1980s, noted that compromises and concessions to appease key lawmakers are an unfortunate reality in getting legislation passed in Congress. "But even allowing for wide latitude in congressional deal-making, the unfairness and favoritism of the Nebraska Compromise goes too far," Zoeller said.

2. Insurance exchanges problematic. The bill would require states to create insurance "exchanges" and require for-profit health insurers to offer certain types of coverage, making private insurers essentially highly-regulated entities similar to public utilities, the report says. Before insurance exchanges are available, states would have to administer a temporary reinsurance program for high-risk patients. That mandatory obligation on the part of state officials might be found unconstitutional, according to the report.

3. Indiana Medicaid costs. For Indiana, the bill would expand the Medicaid program by approximately 500,000 recipients, increasing Indiana's Medicaid costs by $2.4 billion over 10 years, according to the actuary for the Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA). Moreover, the bill would divert pharmaceutical rebate savings from the states to the federal government, potentially resulting in a loss to Indiana of $750 million by 2019. FSSA estimated it ultimately would cost Indiana $60 million to $80 million to implement the insurance exchange to accommodate program growth. The influx of new patients at reduced reimbursement rates could drive medical providers out of the Medicaid system. Indiana's health insurance plans for state government employees would have to be reconfigured, the report says.

4. State insurance plans preempted. The Senate bill likely would spell the end of the popular Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) where low-income Hoosiers now are able to purchase state-run health coverage -- funded partially through cigarette tax - that emphasizes preventive care. The report predicts HIP would have to be shut down as its participants were shifted to the federal plan. Some state insurance regulations and licensing requirements also would be preempted by the federal legislation. 

5. Economic impact. With new excise taxes imposed on pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device manufacturers, the Senate bill would have a substantial negative impact on two Indiana industries that employed a combined 35,500 Hoosiers in 2007.

The report concludes that the Senate version of the health care bill is unlikely to achieve one of its major goals, reducing the cost of health care. It would instead subsidize rising health care costs through an expansion of Medicaid and through the proposed insurance exchange system. At the same time, the Senate's proposed cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates would likely lead to fewer physicians willing to see Medicare patients. And, by mandating that insurance plans sold on exchanges or offered by large employers offer specified benefits, the Senate bill is likely to cause a steep increase in insurance premiums, the report concludes.

While the status of the Senate version of the bill is uncertain, the health care proposal still is before Congress and the Attorney General's report is one more piece of information for the Indiana congressional delegation to consider in light of the state impact.


16 posted on 03/29/2010 7:14:45 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I, and I hope many other FReepers, will be keeping a very close eye on who is bringing about these Constitutional suits and the actual supportive arguments that are being included in the lawsuits.

The several Constitutional lines Obamacare crosses is very clear.If the LEFT wants this insane legislation upheld, then very weak legal challenges will be put forward under the pretense of, 'We're doing something about it." None-the-less, it will be a pretense. I, and again I hope other FReepers, will be watching for any phony or shoddy legal presentations which would indicate a legal sham.


17 posted on 03/29/2010 7:19:27 PM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
We should ID the states not involved and try to get to at least 35 and maybe 40. A Tea Party project maybe.

Don't hold your breath for Connecticut joining the lawsuit or filing one of their own. Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell(R) wants the $100 million hospital bribe provision in this unconstitutional, socialist health care scheme that was given to Dodd. Dodd's hand picked successor, fellow flaming socialist AG Richard Blumenthal won't move on it until Rell asks him.

I've been calling and emailing both of their offices reminding them of their responsibility to protect the citizens of Connecticut against an unconstitutional, overreaching act by Congress.
18 posted on 03/29/2010 7:20:33 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

The SC Lt. Gov was just on Greta and he is starting the ball rolling to try and get a constitutional convention with the sole purpose of killing Obamacare.


19 posted on 03/29/2010 7:21:47 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

It’s NOT going to be NY, that’s for sure.


20 posted on 03/29/2010 7:23:58 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pyx

That would take legal type freepers. I could read tons of suits all day long and would never know a good one from a bad one. Plus I’d go into a coma probably after an hour or two.


21 posted on 03/29/2010 7:26:45 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

God Bless the Hoosiers!!


22 posted on 03/29/2010 7:31:35 PM PDT by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Thanks for keeping us up on this.

I’d love to see fifty states taking the federal government on, but even sixteen is quite impressive.

California stands to lose big-time on this, but Jerry Brown is our AG. He’s not going to buck Il Douche’.


23 posted on 03/29/2010 7:32:23 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Novemberrrrrr.. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2477039/posts?page=16#16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn
A Constitutional convention would be an opportunity for the LEFT to cause all forms of mayhem with insane proposals and by inserting versions of social engineering into the Constitution and lastly is unnecessary. Lastly, I am very suspicious from where calls for Constitutional conventions are ORIGINATING. The Constitution is NOT a "living document".

Constitutional lawsuits will suffice to kill Obamacare if the supportive arguments are clear and the documentation is not shoddy. See post # 17.


24 posted on 03/29/2010 7:33:06 PM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn
The SC Lt. Gov was just on Greta and he is starting the ball rolling to try and get a constitutional convention with the sole purpose of killing Obamacare.

National constitutional convention? I think he may be jumping the gun a little but the saber rattling can't hurt. ;^)

We conservatives have GOT to keep banging the drum LOUDLY for putting the feral government back in its cage. It not only gives us the feeling we're accomplishing something, it gives the States cover to go to battle on our behalf. It should be obvious by now that DC could care less what We The People want. The States making demands on the other hand are a different matter altogether...

25 posted on 03/29/2010 7:35:50 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pyx

I just reported the facts from what he stated on the program... he said it would be for the sole purpose of Obamacare and nothing else.


26 posted on 03/29/2010 7:41:09 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
LOL ! I hear ya.

None-the-less, America very much needs an army of watch-dogs to keep a very close eye on these lawyers to ensure they are not pulling a fast one on us. We've been bamboozled so many times in past by lawmakers and their lawyers supposedly working on our behalf.

The old saw rings truer than ever;

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

So its important that we have as many sets of eyes on these suits as possible.


27 posted on 03/29/2010 7:41:58 PM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
You're welcome. A small gesture but a labor of love for my country I assure you.

I’d love to see fifty states taking the federal government on, but even sixteen is quite impressive.

Just so! I suspect there may be several more before the dust settles. Any noise we conservatives can make at this point I hope would give some wobbly States additional backbone.

California stands to lose big-time on this, but Jerry Brown is our AG. He’s not going to buck Il Douche’.

I saw moonbeam being interviewed a day or two ago on the subject. He hasn't a clue. His ONLY prayer at this point is his reliance on the current resident of the White House bailing his and his Sacramento commies' sorry A$$E$ out. Pardon my French...

28 posted on 03/29/2010 7:48:19 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pyx
A Constitutional convention would be an opportunity for the LEFT to cause all forms of mayhem with insane proposals and by inserting versions of social engineering into the Constitution and lastly is unnecessary.

They will (the left), but that is what happens when one party tries to overreach. I don't think it will go very far (yet) but Obama and the Democrats are not finished. This is a very scary thing they are doing and there is absolutely no telling what the unintended consequences will be from all of this.

29 posted on 03/29/2010 7:55:54 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

What happens when we get to 25 states, much less 40+ or all 57?


30 posted on 03/29/2010 8:21:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I am the Sumo Ninja! Fear me or feed me. Hey, come back here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pyx

I agree, and I hope smart freepers can post the Dummies’ Version for the likes of me.


31 posted on 03/29/2010 8:24:58 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

What happens when we get to 25 states, much less 40+ or all 57?


32 posted on 03/29/2010 8:29:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I am the Sumo Ninja! Fear me or feed me. Hey, come back here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GloriaJane
When is Ohio going to stand up for her citizens?

Never with the Dems in charge.

We have to CHANGE that!

33 posted on 03/29/2010 8:37:06 PM PDT by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star recipient!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Let it be noted, relevant to your list, that Rob McKenna, the AG for the state of Washington intends to file on his own volition and his decision to do so is being hotly contested by lady Guv, Christine Gregoire (better known as “Fraudoire” to non-supporters in her state).

The whizzing match has only just begun to get interesting; I imagine the same may occur in a few other states.

A.A.C.


34 posted on 03/29/2010 8:40:16 PM PDT by AmericanArchConservative (Armour on, Lances high, Swords out, Bows drawn, Shields front ... Eagles UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

The sad thing is, it is quite simple to join in once the decision has been filed. I am a lawyer and we call it the “me too” brief. I basically wait for a really smart lawyer to spend a ton of time writing a brief requesting the same relief that I am seeking. I then write “For all the reasons set forth in Ms. X’s brief, I hereby join in her request.”


35 posted on 03/29/2010 8:46:47 PM PDT by MattinNJ (Yes, they did. Now, what are we going to do about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MattinNJ
I am a lawyer and we call it the “me too” brief. I basically wait for a really smart lawyer to spend a ton of time writing a brief requesting the same relief that I am seeking. I then write “For all the reasons set forth in Ms. X’s brief, I hereby join in her request.”

Is that something that we, as individuals, could do?

36 posted on 03/29/2010 8:48:16 PM PDT by SCalGal (Friends don't let friends donate to H$U$ or PETA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AmericanArchConservative
Let it be noted, relevant to your list, that Rob McKenna, the AG for the state of Washington intends to file on his own volition...

Yeah, I'd heard he was catching holy hell from the barking moonbats. Steppin' out there ain't he??? A man of some substance it would seem.

37 posted on 03/29/2010 8:48:26 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

bttt


38 posted on 03/29/2010 8:59:05 PM PDT by sweetiepiezer (I have a Pal in Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrChips
Yeah for my peeps!
39 posted on 03/29/2010 9:17:34 PM PDT by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Oh shore it is. NY will be right on up there with CA!

:(


40 posted on 03/29/2010 9:20:35 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (Here's a thought!! Donate to the website you are on RIGHT NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma

Fighting for last place.....


41 posted on 03/29/2010 9:32:42 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Yep. I reeeeaaaaaealllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy need to move.


42 posted on 03/29/2010 9:34:10 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (Here's a thought!! Donate to the website you are on RIGHT NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: pyx; All

A Constitutional convention would be an opportunity for the LEFT to cause all forms of mayhem with insane proposals and by inserting versions of social engineering into the Constitution and lastly is unnecessary. Lastly, I am very suspicious from where calls for Constitutional conventions are ORIGINATING. The Constitution is NOT a “living document”.

Constitutional lawsuits will suffice to kill Obamacare if the supportive arguments are clear and the documentation is not shoddy. See post # 17.

*****

A Constitutional Convention should only be used if all other legislative and judicial efforts fail. However, it is the little-known 4th rail of the system of checks and balances.

Read this thread about the procedures that have already been put in place by Congress - it shows that it is a highly regulated process that WOULD NOT allow for the devolution into chaos.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823341/posts

FYI: I have not been able to find this procedure at any government web sites ...

If a targeted, concise petition were circulated to the states - limited to between 1-5 amendments, each having a 75%-80% popularity, there would be a strong possibility that they would pass.

The ONE amendment that should be put in would be the prohibition of the use of eminent domain in order to transfer private ownership of land from one citizen to another [just for the sake of increased tax revenue]. See Kelo v. New Haven. This amendment would probably have a better than 90% approval rating.

A bonus from having a small, targeted amendment pass would be that Congress would then be aware that the states can [and will] take control from them - if they do not perform their duties in accordance with the wishes of the people ...


43 posted on 03/29/2010 10:14:16 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

Meanwhile, the MI gov. is forcing the AG to put in a counter claim, because he is her attorney, and she represents the state. So he has to argue for both sides. What a croc o’ crap!

I’m sure Queen Christine (WA) will follow very soon. She’s just probably mad that she didn’t think of it first.


44 posted on 03/30/2010 12:32:00 AM PDT by Just Lori (The road to hell is paved with liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

He’s surprising us all in this state. We really didn’t think he had it in him. The Queen is fighting him every step of the way.


45 posted on 03/30/2010 12:34:17 AM PDT by Just Lori (The road to hell is paved with liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
California stands to lose big-time on this, but Jerry Brown is our AG. He’s not going to buck Il Douche’.

I will pray that California will be next. May God convict Brown that this needs to be done. It's not impossible.

46 posted on 03/30/2010 12:36:18 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

It won’t be Delaware. Beau Biden has refused to file suit. I guess Daddy is more important than the people who voted for him.

When more and more state taxes - eventually a sales tax - it will be his fault. I have called his office. I suggest everyone in Delaware (and anyplace else) call the office and give them what for.

AG Civil Division (302)577-8400
Attorney.General@state.de.us


47 posted on 03/30/2010 1:01:14 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I’m very proud to be a Hoosier, originally from VA, proud of both.


48 posted on 03/30/2010 3:58:23 AM PDT by gattaca (Great things can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrChips

I’m proud of Attorney General Greg Zoeller and Governor Mitch!


49 posted on 03/30/2010 4:18:41 AM PDT by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake; hellinahandcart; Lil'freeper; big'ol_freeper; trooprally; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; ...

Paging Doug Gansler...

Mr. Gansler?


50 posted on 03/30/2010 4:53:35 AM PDT by sauropod (Ill behaved women rarely make dinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson