Posted on 03/24/2010 11:16:54 PM PDT by Red Steel
New Bill Requires State Attorney General To Sue The Federal Government If Health Care "Reform" Is Implemented
Idaho’s governor C. L. Otter has signed a bill which nullifies any health care legislation passed by Congress and requires that state’s attorney general to file a lawsuit against the federal government if such legislation were to be imposed.
The Idaho Health Freedom Act is the second bill of its type, following on the heels of a similar bill passed in Virginia on March 5. That state’s attorney general has said that he will sue the federal government if a health care “reform” bill is passed by the U.S. Congress.
According to Governor Otter, the Idaho Health Freedom Act will ensure “that the citizens of our state won’t be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control.”
According to The Idaho Statesman, “State lawmakers opted for a bill rather than a resolution to give the measure greater weight and to help Idaho’s standing in court” if a federal mandate to buy insurance becomes law.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Oops, the link:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/19/idaho-goes-beyond-rejecting-obamas-national-health-scheme/
It appears in a short time many states will be sanctuaries from ObamaScare.
Seriously, how can an American citizen or a sovereign state fail to have “standing” in the Supreme Court of the United States of America? We really need to fix that little bit of judicial silliness.
This bill will be thrown out in court. States don’t have rights in interstate commerce. I agree O’scare is unconstitutional on a few points ie mandated commerce but states can’t pass laws that overrule federal law.
I hope so. Hopefully other states will follow ID on this. Maybe most of the 57 states could become sanctuary states and essentially suceed.
I do believe I could rebase myself in Idaho easily enough.
YES!!! You go Idaho.
Yes States can overrule federal law. Read up on “nullification”.
Every single state should join the fourteen states already suing the federal government. Hesitation in this instance is destructive.
True, but how do the states nullify the additional taxes that will be collected to pay for this?
The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause (which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government
Dont blame me, I am just telling you how it is, certainly not how I wish it were.
iImportant ping.
The Federal plan is to make the states pay for HCR. If a majority of states prohibit it there will be no funding. Not enough to run it anyway. In addition if a good number of states prohibit HCR that will build a lot of pressure to repeal it on the Federal level.
John...just pulled this from Micheli malkins site...get a load of this..they are going to the we hours..demos declining all the ammendments republicans submit!v
As of 11:30 p.m., the chamber had defeated 19 straight Republican proposals and adopted none.
There were no Democratic amendments proposed, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is under pressure to preserve the bill intact, which would prevent it from having to be sent back to the House. The House already approved the reconciliation bill in its session last weekend.
A spokesman for Reid’s office said instead of adjourning, the evening’s continuous voting has put the chamber within reach of A FINAL VOTE IN THE WEE HOURS OF THURSDAY-POSSIBLY BETWEEN 3 AM AND 6AM.... Although 20 hours of debate are normally required, Democrats surrendered their half of that time on Wednesday morning, and GOP leaders decided later in the day against a strategy of filing repeated amendments.
Democratic leaders are moving the bill through the Senate under special parliamentary rules, known as the reconciliation process, under which they only need to amass 51 votes, meaning they can afford to lose several members of their party. Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin, whose rulings were critical to the state of the bill, had not issued any rulings to adversely affect the bill as of 11:30 p.m.
I’ll update through the night. Stay tuned.
***
Update 2:10 AM Eastern. They are now voting on the Hutchison amendment to make permanent certain sales and marriage tax provisions that were set to expire. The amendment falls, 40-55.
Oh, dear. Al Franken has taken over as presiding officer.
John...just pulled this from Micheli malkins site...get a load of this..they are going to the we hours..demos declining all the ammendments republicans submit!v
As of 11:30 p.m., the chamber had defeated 19 straight Republican proposals and adopted none.
There were no Democratic amendments proposed, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is under pressure to preserve the bill intact, which would prevent it from having to be sent back to the House. The House already approved the reconciliation bill in its session last weekend.
A spokesman for Reid’s office said instead of adjourning, the evening’s continuous voting has put the chamber within reach of A FINAL VOTE IN THE WEE HOURS OF THURSDAY-POSSIBLY BETWEEN 3 AM AND 6AM.... Although 20 hours of debate are normally required, Democrats surrendered their half of that time on Wednesday morning, and GOP leaders decided later in the day against a strategy of filing repeated amendments.
Democratic leaders are moving the bill through the Senate under special parliamentary rules, known as the reconciliation process, under which they only need to amass 51 votes, meaning they can afford to lose several members of their party. Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin, whose rulings were critical to the state of the bill, had not issued any rulings to adversely affect the bill as of 11:30 p.m.
I’ll update through the night. Stay tuned.
***
Update 2:10 AM Eastern. They are now voting on the Hutchison amendment to make permanent certain sales and marriage tax provisions that were set to expire. The amendment falls, 40-55.
Oh, dear. Al Franken has taken over as presiding officer.
As far as I know the Supremes nullified nullification. Got any post civil war examples? Knowing what the Constitution says is step 1, knowing how the Supremes interpret it is what affects daily life.
Franken...
LOL!
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.