States’ Attorneys General issue statements on health care bill

FROM NO RESPONSE AT ALL TO OUTSPOKEN STATES’ RIGHTS DEFENDERS

by Sharon Rondeau

Kenneth Cuccinelli, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia

(Mar. 22, 2010) — Reaction to the passage of the health care bill by the states ranged from nothing to the promise of a lawsuit enjoined by other states against the Congress for overstepping its constitutional authority.

The Maryland attorney general’s press person seemed surprised when asked if the attorney general would be issuing a statement.  The only response was “No…no.”  New Jersey’s AG will not be issuing a statement.  The North Carolina AG’s press contact said that the AG “is thinking about it.”  The phone lines were overloaded in Georgia and Maine, and no one answered at all in Massachusetts.

New Hampshire’s AG press contact was not in today, but his voice mail was accessible.

Connecticut’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal,  issued a statement late in the day which reads, in part:  “As a supporter of health care reform, I commend congress for adopting a health care bill — a historic step toward fairness and access for all in need of critical care and coverage.”  However, Blumenthal concluded with “I have received no official request from an authorized state official to challenge federal health care legislation — but we will review such a request if we receive it.”

Blumenthal is a candidate for the Senate, replacing Christopher Dodd, who is retiring.  Today Connecticut’s governor, M. Jodi Rell, called the bill “a shameful exercise in democracy,” also stating, “We’re the ones left to figure out the bill, see if it can work and determine how much it will cost.  This I can tell you: Connecticut, like nearly every other state, cannot afford millions and billions in costs that Washington passes along. It’s that simple.”  Rell is not seeking re-election this November.

If the legislation stands, Connecticut would benefit by receiving $100,000,000 for “direct construction or renovation of, a health care facility.”

The attorney general of North Dakota issued a statement which concluded with “Even the supporters of the legislation concede the measure contains serious flaws.  Whether some of those admitted flaws give rise to a legally defensible constitutional challenge requires a thoughtful legal analysis.  As Attorney General of North Dakota, I will not be making a final decision in that regard until after that process has been completed.”

Patrick Lynch, Attorney General of Rhode Island, issued a statement which opens with “Current talk of suing federal government is political posturing and premature in regard to final Health Care Bill.” Lynch contended that “there is no new Health Care Bill yet.”

Kenneth Cuccinelli, AG of Virginia, announced today that he would be filing a lawsuit.  Jon Bruning, Attorney General of Nebraska and President of the National Association of Attorneys General, will also be suing.  According to The New York Times, “Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North and South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Washington” will also be filing suit.

The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, has asked her state’s attorney general, Terry Goddard, “to join the attorneys general of at least 13 other states in their review of the legality of the federal health care bill.”  Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota has asked Attorney General Lori Swanson to do the same.

On March 22, 1765, Britain imposed the Stamp Act on the colonies.  “This act placed a tariff on virtually every form of printed matter, including newspapers and playing cards. The Stamp Act by itself may not have been a catalyst to revolution, but combined with the previous year’s Sugar Act and the subsequent Quartering Act, the effect was to provoke riots and open rebellion…”

5 Responses to "States’ Attorneys General issue statements on health care bill"

  1. JeanWTPUSA   Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 2:48 PM

    Guess what other law was signed on this SAME DAY in history? Hitler’s Enabling Act. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/enabling.htm

    How much more PROOF do we need? Wake Up Sheeple!!

    Reply
  2. IceTrey   Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM

    For 65 years under the McCarran-Ferguson Act health insurance was not considered “commerce”. That is why it was regulated by the states and the states could impose mandates and limit providers. It also excluded health insurance companies from the anti-trust laws. Now Congress is making the case that they can regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause. So which is it? Commerce or not commerce? It will take a court case to decide. If it is commerce then we should be able to buy insurance across state lines and eliminate state mandates. If it’s not commerce then the new bill is unconstitutional and should be thrown out.

    Reply
  3. kenneth   Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 10:47 AM

    We need to put pressure on by including illegal president signing law.
    Doing this then the courts will have to hear it.

    Reply
  4. JeanWTPUSA   Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 5:06 AM

    contact info for States Attorneys General: http://www.naag.org/current-attorneys-general.php

    Reply
  5. Pixel Patriot   Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 4:40 AM

    So the final bribe to be resolved was due to an impasse over abortion. Remember when asked by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

    Oh the irony of it all. How about a Constitutional perspective!

    Make your voice heard in the courts — join the legal challenge today by adding your name to the ACLJ Constitutional Committee to Challenge the President and Congress on Health Care, which will be represented in amicus briefs filed in all the key challenges…

    The American Center for Law and Justice
    https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?sc=3559&ac=1

    “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” — This famous saying of both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin is said to have been on the epitaph of John Bradshaw (1602-1659), a British judge who presided over the trial of King Charles I, when his body was re-interred in Jamaica (where it was taken by his son to protect it from the fury of the Restoration towards regicides).

    “Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants.” — William Penn

    http://www.riseupforamerica.com/

    “What’s your pay grade?”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.