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)
.
.
Heh, Doug Gansler’s Day Off???
This is wonderful news. Go for it.
Doesn’t surprise me a bit re: Brown. Par for the course...
I’m all for him retiring and letting a conservative republican in there.
P.S. Ellsworth got rebuked by his Bishop, Gerald Gettlefinger.
I share your thought on this.
I agree that we should let the justice system work its course first but, actually, we do not know if lawsuits will suffice …
Case in point – Kelo v. New London. It is PAINFULLY obvious that the Founders DID NOT want land taken from one property owner to be given to another property owner, just for the sake of increased tax revenue. But, SCOTUS ruled otherwise. [BTW: I think that Kelo could also be applied to taking of a business from one person to another].
Now, let us suppose that SCOTUS makes a bone-headed decision and rules the healthcare law constitutional.
What ya gonna do ??? Drop trou, bend over, grab ankles, and cheerfully say “Thank you Sir … May I have another ???” [BTW: Obama is ALSO gonna make you buy the Vaseline]. Or are ya gonna go after them via Constitutional Convention ??? It is a tool that the Founders left us to use against tyrannical government.
This is what I would do [assuming that healthcare is ruled legal]:
I would call a Constitutional Convention to pass a single amendment – a clarified definition of eminent domain. It would strictly limit its use to the taking of land for public infrastructure – not the passing of property [or a business] from one person to another just for the sake of increased tax revenue and jobs.
This FIRST Constitutional Convention MUST be a success – in order to show that it CAN and WILL be done when necessary. That is why I suggest eminent domain ONLY. It would have better than a 90% chance of passing – and you only need 75%. Healthcare, at first, might have a 50-50 chance, so it would be best NOT to try it right out of the gate.
Then, the states should go back with a SHORT list to Congress and tell them that they better get things fixed – or a SECOND Constitutional Convention would be called. Possible amendments could be healthcare, line-item veto, banning of inducements in bills to sway votes, etc. BUT, they MUST be amendments with MORE than a reasonable chance of success. And THAT convention would ALSO contain the hammer … a term-limit amendment.
If legislators are going to listen to their political parties rather than the will of the people, then the fear of God must be struck in them – this is a way to do it.
BTW:
In Federalist Paper #85, Hamilton stated HE DID NOT BELIEVE that legislators would enact ANY laws – other than for the good of the PEOPLE. BUT, he also added that IF such a case should occur – then the states had recourse via Constitutional Convention.
What are they joinging?
I truly sympathize. Is the problem that CA is just too urbanized? If one looks at a map of the counties and how they vote, the conservative coverage areawise is huge. I gather the metro cess pools have the majority of the population. Add to that some garden variety voter fraud in the inner city precincts and ~voila~, Dims for life!
I was wondering how long it would be before someone pointed that out. Coing collectors maybe???
Great idea!
I think targeting the Governors could be very effective. It’s unbelievable what the states will have to start paying for Obamacare in the near future.
Unfortunately, individuals rarely have standing (right to sue) to initiate litigatioon against the feds. Everyone snickers at the movement for a Constitutional Convention, but one of the proposed amendments is to grant individuals standing when their liberty in impinged upon.
California’s number one problem, is that the Republican party doesn’t exist here. With people like Pete Wilson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and current head of the RNC in California, we might just as well be put on the endangered species list.
Sure there’s one hell of a lot of us in the state, but nobody every sees one of the good ones. Or if they do, the person is relegated to a sound-byte that makes them look like they’re some relic from the 1870s.
We we get a good guy running, the RNC out here seems to have something else more important to do, than help them out.
You give me a few million, perhaps three million more middle-class Americans who get it, and the proper education campaign, and an RNC franchise that actually wanted Conservatism to advance in the state, and we could turn this state around in less than five years.
A few years ago the voters had to vote on homosexual marriage in the state. And shock of all shocks, the issue was turned down. There’s an undercurrent of good people in the state that are in sad need of direction. They do the right thing when the information is out there.
In California, it’s not out there. One leader with a good presentation can do more good than 1000 of us going door to door. And in California, there isn’t leadership from the top.
And so goes a very important state. Instead of bad things starting here in the state, good things could be. Sadly more middle-class move out, no leadership, and the state just sits here decaying. It’s truly sad.
Thanks for the Colliefoornia history. Odd that Pubbies can’t get any real traction out there. Maybe the pendelum will swing their way one of these days...
Thanks for posting. Interesting.
Hopefully, other states’ AG’s were stronger and clearer in their complaints. Granted, this may be a small fraction of what they submitted. But this strikes me as weak, relying too heavily on relative minor points (the arguments that the state’s employment will be affected, the law’s effect on existing state health plans, etc.) The administration’s defense will simply produce its polar opposite findings and they’ll just go round and round with their data.
Since the court is neither an actuary nor economist (and even those experts get things wrong regularly) there’s no real way to test accuracy of the monetary predictions of either side. That leaves far too much cover for the court, as the tie-breaker for which side to believe will go to the one that aligns with the judge’s politics. JMHO
I suspect this one will be based on the integrity or lack thereof, of the individual justices themselves. And with any luck at all their reading of the mood of the country right now. Would be a no-brainer for me, but...
The piece I posted was just a press release. If you follow the link at the top of the article you can get to the nuts and bolts of it. Heck, I'll just link it HERE(pdf).
The lawsuit filed in Florida, now joined by 14 other States I believe, is HERE.
Enjoy! ;^)
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.