Submitted By Todd on December 23rd at 1:51pm
making a fight.
Looks like the steadily growing list of constitutional, ethical and political outrages that constitute the Harry Reid version of Obamacare is sparking a rebellion in the states, as AP reports South Carolina's attorney general plans to investigate the vote-buying that surrounded the proposal in the Senate majority leader's office.The Attorney General of South Carolina, for example, is looking into the constitutionality of having some states, like Nevada, be exempt from Medicaid charges that apply to other states.
According to AP, South Carolina's Henry McMaster is being joined by the attorneys general of Michigan and Washington state in a suit to determine the constitutionality of the Obamacare proposal. Their initiative was prompted by a request from South Carolina's two senators, Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint, both Republicans.Back when Democrats believed in what the founding fathers created, they followed things like the 10th Amendment - an add-on to the constitution that was passed to reinforce what was already very clear - the federal government's power is restricted to that which is specifically itemized in the constitution.
Attorneys-general in at least four other states are also considering joining McMasters, according to AP. A move by a group of states to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare could reinvigorate the efficacy of the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states or the people all rights not specifically granted to the federal government.Then there's the issue of the health insurance mandate. Can you imagine the federal government forcing all Americans to buy a GM Car? What right does it have to make us buy an insurance policy?
Republican Sen. John Ensign has inserted a complicated legal question into the health care debate: Can the federal government require Americans to buy health insurance? Those who don’t buy insurance would face fines that rise gradually to $750 — or a maximum of $2,250 per family.The legal arguments are complicated, but if one goes back to the underlying principles of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment, one knows that the intent was too have the states be strong and the feds be weak. That has been ignored, and we need to push it back, not make it worse with huge new government programs.
Even though Obama argues that the mandate is similar to laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance, opponents cite several key differences. First, the auto insurance mandate is avoidable, since anyone who doesn't want to pay doesn't have to drive. Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover damages to other people and cars -- not themselves. Third, auto insurance regulation occurs at the state level.