WOW. I have been advocating this for days.
The SCOTUS may have the last laugh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Bruning listens to Nebraskans.
people who don’t like a law always yell ‘unconstitutional’.
big deal
It says WA is in on this!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need a WA ping.
This is good news!
God bless Bill McCollum.
Although some protion of the bill might be covered under the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, it is difficult to see any enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to implement such a vast medical care program on its own delegated authority.
It is a settled point of law that, under the concept of “dual sovereignty,” federal law can govern the activities of individuals, but it cannot govern a state or require it to do anything, including enforcing a federal law. [Printz v. United States and Mack v. United States, (June 27, 1997)]
The Court has, however, ruled that the federal government, under something called “cooperative federalism,” can allow the States, within limits established by federal minimum standards, to enact and administer their own regulatory programs, structured to meet their own particular needs. If they don’t, then the regulatory burden is entirely up to the feds. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264 (1981)
Under what is termed the federal “spending power,” Congress may use monetary allocations to achieve its aims.
[”The clause thought to authorize the legislation, the first, confers upon the Congress 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...” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)]
In New York v. United States 505 US 144 (1992), the Court declared: “...the Constitution authorizes Congress “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, 8, cl. 1. As conventional notions of the proper objects of government spending have changed over the years, so has the ability of Congress to “fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money to the States...”
“...’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...”
So that is part of the key to responding to this. The states are free to decline the program (such as the expanded Medicaid,) but that also means declining the federal money and the strings attached to it.
The sooner the better.
Wondering if Mike Cox in MI is on board. It would certainly give a huge boost to his run for governor.
Looking for NY on the list.
What? No NY?
Bahhaaahaaa!
The States can also overthrow the bill with a 75% vote (I’ve heard that we have 80% onboard).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2476745/posts
Please spread the word.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2476519/posts
“Bill McCollum will join Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota to file a lawsuit against the federal government.”
Virginia as well.
These lawsuits will go no where and do nothing except make a lot of money for some attorneys. Face it, Obamacare is the law of the land.
bttt
McCollum is going to be on FOX with Bill Hemmer in a bit.
I called McCollum’s office this morning to thank him for standing firm on our rights as a STATE under the constitution.
I’m living in a Red State with a Blue AG. http://law.ga.gov/02/ago/home/0,2705,87670814,00.html