States’ Rights Last Stand

Comment

Comment by Shelly Leahy on April 5, 2010 at 4:01pm

Read your history books. The Civil War began because of STATES' RIGHTS. We must preserve them.

Comment by Robert Turner on March 30, 2010 at 8:34pm

This argument defies logic. Deny an obvious benefit.

For what purpose, then? Jan argues that the "founders" didn't intend for this "health care takeover". Oh, really. I've made several passes through the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton... gee. Having a tough time finding where our "founders" explicitly stated that industry regulation would lead to dissolution of the union.

The Republican party was clearly on the wrong side of the argument, had ample opportunity to creatively join the process (7 hours on CNN, anyone), had many of their concerns added to the final legislation, and yet not ONE Republican could support the bill? Much less, why must every single Republican repeat the exact same talking points?

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy. This is not what I signed up for and the majority of the American people don't want this Republican party either. You guys are so missing the point. Come along with so-called "moderates" like me and get your head out of the sand.

Comment by Robert Turner on March 30, 2010 at 8:27pm

To Tamara,
I find it interesting that to disagree with Jan Larimer's spurious claims of states' sovereignty over federal law automatically qualifies me as a Democrat. For a party that wants to include "independents" so much, you sure do your best to push them away.

Familiarize yourself with Article VI of the Constitution. It's the Supremacy Clause, in case you ever wondered. It's a very simple thing for folks like Jan to broil arguments by conflating states' rights with the overriding laws of the United States. The very power states have they derive directly from the Constitution of the United States (thus the "United" part of that name). The only means by which states can defy Federal law are by secession, wherein said state will no longer enjoy the protections or benefits of the United States.

I'm sure Jan would agree that this is a path of fools. Now what were you saying about "Federal law does not become the law within a state"? Ah, you're wrong. Sorry. Period.

Comment by Leon Dubin on March 27, 2010 at 7:14pm

This is certainly an interesting topic under the guise of constitutional law.

Firstly, the fact that 13 states filed suit is not indicative of the constitutional merit of the claim. Surely, throughout the epochs, many states have filed law suits that lacked constitutional merit (For example, in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other legislation dealing with 14th amendment equality issues).
With that being said, there are two issues that this could be challenged on: a 10th amendment, and the commerce clause.

10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment has been a source of issues, particularly in the 19th century. The question then becomes, how does one construe this amendment? To the lay person, it would seem like this amendment would invalidate the health care bill - where does it say in the constitution they could mandate health care?!? However, as the first Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, it is a constitution we are expounding. Additionally, Justice Frankfurter in Youngstown v. Sawyer (the most influential case when it comes to the limit of executive power) noted of the need to have a gloss effect with the constitution to preserve its basic functionality. Put simply, to read the constitution literally defeats the purpose of the document itself.

The two most notable suits invalidating Congressional statutes are NY v. US (holding that a statute requiring four states to take in Nuclear waste, facing a penalty if they refused, was unconstitutional) and Printz v. US (holding that certain interim provisions of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks violated the 10th amendment because it encroached on traditional states' rights). However, these cases dealt with statutes regulating solely government functions, whereas the individual mandate , and other aspects of the bill focus on the private sphere. Additionally, because of the supremacy clause, sweeping legislation cannot be declared unconstitutional because it goes against the states' interest. A 10th amendment argument is inevitably intertwined with Articled I powers under the constitution. Most notably, the commerce clause.

The second objection could be raised vis-a-vis the commerce clause. The commerce clause states: “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” There is a doctrinal split between originalists(Scalia and the conservative wing), and non-originalists(John Paul Stevens and the liberal wing). Because of the conservative stack on the court, the current rule reads as such: Congress has power to regulate 1) instrumentalities; 2) chattels; 3) and people within interstate commerce. The court rejected the previous liberal test, established in Wickard, that if something has an effect in aggregate, it can be regulated under the commerce clause (Although there still is an aspect of the test that states that Congress can regulate something that has a substantial impact on interstate commerce).

It would be hard to mount an argument saying that congress does not have the right to regulate Health Care. Surely, the sheer size and scope of the industry involves interstate commerce. The amount of GDP associated with Health Care is indicative of this fact. Also, starie decisis does not give credence to the lack of constitutionality claim: the two most recent profound Supreme Court decisions invalidated statutes that did not have a clear relation to interstate commerce: US v. Lopez (Holding that the Gun-Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress’ authority under the CC . This was non-economic activity for which aggregate effect analysis is not appropriate) ; and US v. Morrison (striking down a statute that allowed for a cause of action for raped women under the Violence Against Women Act because it did not substantially effect interstate commerce). Put simply, it would be hard to argue that Health Care did not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

I would love to hear your collective thoughts on this legally based analysis.

Comment by Tamara on March 26, 2010 at 8:51pm

To Robert...I think your question is almost rhetorical or argumentative. As you know, Federal law does not become the law within a state. Federal and state laws actually have different areas of authority.
You may not have realized that you are on a website that supports Republicans, not one that supports the Democratic take over agenda.

Comment by Melody Burns on March 25, 2010 at 3:09pm

Am tired of hearing, "why don't you want people to have the same health care you do?" I pay for mine, why can't they! Also tired of the attack on the successful - if you make over $200,000 you need to pay more because you have worked hard to get where you are. Don't we all have the same opportunity - some of us just choose different roads to get to the destination! Are there stats on the number of people who have been turned away at hospitals and not treated? Recently when my husband was in the emergency room for a real emergency, we saw first hand who was coming in and what they were coming in for. During the six hours we were there, I didn't notice anyone being turned away... That argument doesn't fly with me! If this is a such a great deal for all of us, why are so many who are close to the Whitehouse not jumping on the bandwagon and using the "exchange"? Being a New York State resident; a state that has no money even though the Democratic Assembly is spending like crazy and eager to borrow money to start new programs despite the fact that we are really bankrupt, we can't afford this "gift" from Washington. It is not even worth regifting!

Comment by Debra Kay Stansberry on March 24, 2010 at 5:38pm

Big Government is bad government. It is scary to think we are turning into a Socialist country.....and through Obama, Pelosi and Reid that is exactly what is happening.. WE should be a government for the people by the people.....what happened to that?

Comment by blobert on March 24, 2010 at 2:58pm

Yeah! You go girl! I don't want the government telling me I can't sell my kidneys online!

Comment by Robert Turner on March 24, 2010 at 2:54pm

Doesn't the Constitution state that Federal law shall become the law of every state? We didn't witness states attorneys general fighting the previous administration for deployment and costs of deployment of state's national guardsmen. Why should states fight the federal government over stipulating that everyone have access to adequate health insurance coverage?

Moreover, why are Republicans fighting a law that incorporated Republican ideas?