http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2215987420100322

"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.

"On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."

Yap Yap Yap! When Ronnie Reagan threatened to cut off federal highway funds to any state that didn't raise its drinking age to 21, I don't remember an uproar about the 10th Amendment then.  If these states don't want the health care bill, I'd like to see them dump all the bennies they get from the feds that technically violate the 10th.
::)

Yap Yap Yap! When Ronnie Reagan threatened to cut off federal highway funds to any state that didn't raise its drinking age to 21, I don't remember an uproar about the 10th Amendment then.  If these states don't want the health care bill, I'd like to see them dump all the bennies they get from the feds that technically violate the 10th.
::)



Don't you know when it is Republicans-good. When it is Democrats-bad.



Cat

Don't you know when it is Republicans-good. When it is Democrats-bad.



Cat


You mean like Frankenstein?

Fire, bad!!!!!!

;D

You mean like Frankenstein?

Fire, bad!!!!!!

;D


I mean like Young Frankenstein!

You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/frankie.gif

Yap Yap Yap! When Ronnie Reagan threatened to cut off federal highway funds to any state that didn't raise its drinking age to 21, I don't remember an uproar about the 10th Amendment then.

If I recall that correctly, it was a 5% cut in highway funding to any state that didn't make their legal drinking age a minimum of 21 years old.  South Dakota sued and lost, the U.S. Supreme court saying that the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.

This, however, is quite different.  States can still have their drinking age below 21 if they like.  States can have their highway speed limit above 55 MPH.  There are no such things as a "federal drinking age" and a "federal speed limit"; those are myths.  This law though doesn't just threaten to cut off a small percentage of funds to states that do not comply, it mandates them to comply.  And that is unconstitutional under the 10th amendment.

I mean like Young Frankenstein!

You are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/frankie.gif


"I am not a Frankenstein. I'm a Fronkensteen!"

;D

In a way, I hope this suit wins.

If the precedent is set that the feds pushing programs or costs of enforcement of a law onto the states without providing funding for it is unconstitutional, then that means the War on Drugs is going to end very soon and very abruptly.

If I recall that correctly, it was a 5% cut in highway funding to any state that didn't make their legal drinking age a minimum of 21 years old.  South Dakota sued and lost, the U.S. Supreme court saying that the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.

This, however, is quite different.  States can still have their drinking age below 21 if they like.  States can have their highway speed limit above 55 MPH.  There are no such things as a "federal drinking age" and a "federal speed limit"; those are myths.  This law though doesn't just threaten to cut off a small percentage of funds to states that do not comply, it mandates them to comply.  And that is unconstitutional under the 10th amendment.


Trenchant points.  It was also not Reagan's initiative, but Candy Lightner of MADD and some powerful cohorts in the senate pushing for the bill's passage.  The cuts in federal highway aid were minor, but it was still federal encroachment on the vaunted "states rights" the conservatives love to toot about.  My problem with the 21 minimum drinking age are on the principle that if society says you're mature enough to vote, get married, and join the army at 18, you should be entrusted with a bottle of beer.  IMO, the 21 minimum drinking age has encouraged protracted adolescence and a disproportionate fascination with procuring and consuming alcohol among young people.  I live in a college town, I see this crap go down every weekend!
::)

The conservative argument, of course, would be, "If you don't like the health care plans available in Nebraska, you can move to Colorado."  The presumption of mobility is obnoxious for one thing, and the other is the inevitable race to the bottom as states fight being magnets for the old and the sick.  That's why I want health care to be a right protected under the 14th amendment.  It's a stretch, but a stretch in the right direction. 

The other wretched canard making the rounds is "competition across state lines will make health care cheaper."  Yeah, if every state except Texas prohibits exclusion based on pre-existing conditions, then all the insurance companies will move to Texas.
"Sorry, Mr. Smith, we can't insure you, you have MS."
"But I living in Maryland."
"And we operate under Texas law, so go f**k yourself!"
::)

Yeah, if every state except Texas prohibits exclusion based on pre-existing conditions, then all the insurance companies will move to Texas.


T, e, x... dude, that's not how you spell Delaware. 

T, e, x... dude, that's not how you spell Delaware. 



I'm sure their "corporate headquarters" will remain in a P.O. Box on Grand Cayman Island.



Cat

T, e, x... dude, that's not how you spell Delaware. 


It will be if Delaware nixes pre-existing conditions. 

Anyway, the Constitution gives the federal government explicit power to levy taxes.  This "commerce clause" case is going a north of nowhere!
::)

It will be if Delaware nixes pre-existing conditions. 

Anyway, the Constitution gives the federal government explicit power to levy taxes.  This "commerce clause" case is going a north of nowhere!
::)


And regulate interstate trade