13 State AGs Categorically Reject "Nebraska Compromise;" To Litigate if Not Removed

The Right Side of Life ^ | 01/07/2010 | Phil

[Phil_GA]

As I had referenced in a previous posting, lots of State-level resistance is brewing against the congressional healthcare plan, HR3590. Now AmericanGrandJury.org has posted an article summarizing that Alabama Attorney General Troy King has gone on the offensive regarding the "Nebraska Compromise."

What is the premise of the compromise? According to one of Mr. King's pressers:

The "Nebraska Compromise," as it is being called, would ostensibly require the remaining 49 States to recoup the loss of Nebraska's Medicaid payments, and was added to the Senate bill in return for the vote of Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (D). With the addition of Senator Nelson's vote, the Senate's Health Care Bill was able to move forward with the required 60 votes.

In other words, as Sean Hannity terms it, "Cash for Cloture."

[SNIP]

According to Mr. King, not only did Mr. McMaster say "no" to Sen. Nelson, but essentially retorted with a "hell no:"

"Thursday night, Senator Nelson called South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and offered to give all states their own version of the Nebraska Compromise in return for our attorneys general group calling off the dogs," said King. "Attorney General McMaster's response was exactly correct – we reject Senator Nelson's offer." Attorney General King said that, "this issue has never been about healthcare reform legislation; rather, it is about upholding the Constitution. I cannot stop the United States Senate from making shady deals and passing bad legislation, but I can object to a violation of the Constitution and take actions as attorney general to stop it."

...

[Phil_GA]

I think the Dems have this covered already.

How can you litigate something that does not exist? The Senate has not voted on a written bill as yet, just what COULD be written.

Since there is not really a bill yet, how can it be litigated?

Reading the entire posting will show you that this has, so far, only been in the discussion stages. All that the letter from the AGs says is that they want the provision removed, that if it's not removed, they will likely litigate, and that this issue isn't the only constitutional issue they see with the bill.

Keep in mind that if Mr. King is characterizing Sen. Nelson's attempt to assuage the AGs as "calling off the dogs," then Sen. Nelson knows that the AGs have standing on this issue to take it to Court, should the bill pass in its current form.

Here's the issue: if the bill changes at this point, all bets are off in both Houses, and the Democrat leadership knows this.

Yet, State-level officials have put on paper (with which we can subsequently hold them to account) that they're not backing down either.

-Phil

[freekitty]

Good name for her.

[nj patriot]

I am humiliated to say that here in NJ we have two “appointed” Senators. Both of these men are feckless political hacks. What makes it even worse they dropped their pants for Harry Reid before he put the money on the dresser. Hos I say nothing but Hos! At least the human fire plug, Ben(dover) Nelson took the money before he took the wood. Oh the mental image... I have to go poke out my mind’s eye.