I’m proud of the states that are going to fight this. I came across this quote from your link:
>>>”But Mark Rosen, a Constitution scholar at Chicago-Kent College of Law, said the states do not really have a constitutional leg to stand on.
“Congress has clear authority to pass this type of legislation and under the supremacy clause that makes federal law supreme,” he said.<<<
I’m not familiar with this *supremacy clause* and thought the 10th amendment was what the states were going to use.
I was on another thread earlier in the week and a FReeper (can’t remember who) pointed out the fact that the federal gov’t IS SUPREME over the states according to the *supremacy clause*.
So where does that leave the 10th amendment?
I still haven’t fully recovered from yesterday so forgive me if I’m missing something that should be obvious.
<.i>Introduction
The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
Preemption can be either express or implied. When Congress chooses to expressly preempt state law, the only question for courts becomes determining whether the challenged state law is one that the federal law is intended to preempt. Implied preemption presents more difficult issues. The Court has to look beyond the express language of federal statutes to determine whether Congress has "occupied the field" in which the state is attempting to regulate, or whether a state law directly conflicts with federal law, or whether enforcement of the state law might frustrate federal purposes.
Federal "occupation of the field" occurs, according to the Court in Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), when there is "no room" left for state regulation. Courts are to look to the pervasiveness of the federal scheme of regulation, the federal interest at stake, and the danger of frustration of federal goals in making the determination as to whether a challenged state law can stand.
There is more
Every constitutional lawyer has a different slant
Me personally, I have to have faith & not naysay, tis all I have
Here’s the contradictions
Is Health Care Reform Constitutional?
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/20/is-health-care-reform-constitutional/#pageTitle
Can ObamaCare be repealed?
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/22/can-obamacare-be-repealed/
What They’ve Done Can Be Undone
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/22/what-theyve-done-can-be-undone/
VA AG SC INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IN HC PROVISION TO FORCE YOU TO BUY HC NOT CONSTITUTIONAL . When BO fILES 11:15 then AG’S FILE 11:16
Attorneys general in 11 states poised to challenge healthcare bill
As soon as President Obama signs the healthcare bill into law, the attorneys general say they will challenge its constitutionality. The mandate to buy insurance is at the center of the controversy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0322/Attorneys-general-in-11-states-poised-to-challenge-healthcare-bill
Outlook: Is health-care reform unconstitutional?
Health care will not be repealed until both houses of Congress and the presidency is held by politicians who ran on that platform.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/03/19/DI2010031902926.html
Can States Just Say No To Federal Health Insurance Mandates?
http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Can-States-Just-Say-No-To-Federal-Health-Insurance-Mandates-1926025.html