38 states will sue if it passes!

[tangent4ronpaul]

w00t! - that's 2 more than the last tally!

Who are the 12 hold out states?

-t

[BamaFanNKy]

California
Hawaii
New York
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Oregon
Washington

Those are a few of my ideas who are hold outs.

[FrankRep]

:D:D:D

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_12-2009/2605-coverstory.jpg

State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2957-state-vs-federal-the-nullification-movement

Nullification in a Nutshell
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/2971-nullification-in-a-nutshell

[slothman]

If it passes and the other states don't accept it then does that mean the other states will get more money?

[Brett]

Maryland is no doubt holding out.

[SelfTaught]

They don't have the balls.

[phill4paul]

Whose court will they sue in? city, local, state or FEDERAL? That will work about as well as me in a city court.

[TCE]

California
Hawaii
New York
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Oregon
Washington

Those are a few of my ideas who are hold outs.

I say:

California, Hawaii, New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maine, Washington, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut.

[paulitics]

Come on, don't forget NJ.

[nobody's_hero]

Considering the talk about the "Cornhusker Kickback", wasn't Nebraska (or was it Kansas?) supposed to get something special from this bill?

I think we could call them as being one of the 'hold-outs', even if the kickback was removed.

Virginia's attorney general seems to be vehemently against this bill. We don't need to leave our friends in VA stranded and fighting this thing alone, that's for sure.

[TCE]

Come on, don't forget NJ.

Republican Governor + I thought Republican Attorney General...

Nobody's: I am pretty sure it got removed, but no one will read the 2700 pages to find out. And yes, he got voted in by somewhat of a landslide, so it isn't hard to imagine he'll sue.

[Juan McCain]

Whose court will they sue in? city, local, state or FEDERAL? That will work about as well as me in a city court.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to render judgement upon any claim against the United States founded
upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department . . .
the court may award declaratory and injunctive relief . . . but not tort damages.

so Idaho v. U.S. presumably could be in the US Court of Federal Claims in DC (?)

[hillbilly123069]

Illinois isn't fighting it.Quinn would have to spit Barry's peter out to pick up a pen

[hillbilly123069]

I stand corrected.Illinois is trying move legislation.Quinn won't touch it though.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62I37920100319

[phill4paul]

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to render judgement upon any claim against the United States founded
upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department . . .
the court may award declaratory and injunctive relief . . . but not tort damages.

so Idaho v. U.S. presumably could be in the US Court of Federal Claims in DC (?)

Thanks. I kinda knew the answer.:D Point being the state will sue against the federal government in a case whether the federal governments laws are constitutional. There is a conflict of interest in a federal courthouse.

[BuddyRey]

My guess is that my home state of NC won't put up any fight at all, and will gladly roll over for the feds like the servile den of yuppie bankers and bureaucrat-appeasers that it is.

[phill4paul]

My guess is that my home state of NC won't put up any fight at all, and will gladly roll over for the feds like the servile den of yuppie bankers and bureaucrat-appeasers that it is.

C'mon camper buck up! We got you, me, Gunny and Rancher to name only a small few.

[RCA]

To the OP, please post your source of information.

[Dustancostine]

Well hopefully Texas will join in, but our legislature hasn't been in session since last year and wont be until next year, so I doubt we are on that list.

[Dustancostine]

Well hopefully Texas will join in, but our legislature hasn't been in session since last year and wont be until next year, so I doubt we are on that list.

Nevermind, I just got this email::

Greg Abbott "We are fully engaged in the legal challenge to the healthcare bill. This past Thursday, we had a strategy call with other AGs, and today we briefed Texas congressional members who share our concerns with this bill. Texas will be undoubtedly challenge this constitutionally questionable law--it's just a question of whether to file our own lawsuit or join a multistate effort."

-Attorney General, Greg Abbot (Texas)

:D

[BuddyRey]

C'mon camper buck up! We got you, me, Gunny and Rancher to name only a small few.

That actually does make me feel better! :)

I just wish our so-called "representatives" had more of a finger on the pulse of North Carolina's freedom community.

[FrankRep]

To the OP, please post your source of information.

Technically, only 2 states are threatening to sue


Idaho to Sue If Health Care Bill Passes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/17/politics/main6308772.shtml

Virginia will sue over health care
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/cuccinellis_office_confirms_vi.html


The States with anti-Healthcare Nullification Bills Introduced:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/

[Reason]

Technically, only 2 states are threatening to sue


Idaho to Sue If Health Care Bill Passes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/17/politics/main6308772.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/17/politics/main6308772.shtml)

Virginia will sue over health care
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/cuccinellis_office_confirms_vi.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/cuccinellis_office_confirms_vi.html)


The States with anti-Healthcare Nullification Bills Introduced:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/ (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/)

This is why sources should be mandatory in OP's imo...

[wizardwatson]

This is why sources should be mandatory in OP's imo...

I was talking about this in the chatty. About how its the "penalty" provision is what's unconstitutional. This Florida AG calls this bill a "living tax". I don't know what date this vid was uploaded, but he was on Fox today as well and I saw him and he basically said the same thing.

YouTube - Fla Attorney General Considers Suing Fed Govt~Health Care Mandates Unconstitutional.flv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdByQcr6_E4)

[phill4paul]

That actually does make me feel better! :)

I just wish our so-called "representatives" had more of a finger on the pulse of North Carolina's freedom community.

It's up to us to make sure of that. I'm pretty lucky my Rep. McHenry, though a hawk, has been steadily against bailouts or stimulus.

[Anti Federalist]

Health Care Nullification Legislation
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/health-care/
A reading of the Constitution through the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that any national health care plan, or national public option, is not something that was delegated by the People to the Federal Government in the Constitution.

However, the courts, politicians and many commentators have interpreted (and re-interpreted) the Commerce Clause, the general Welfare Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause in ways not intended by the Founders so as to justify such programs under the Constitution. They are most certainly wrong. A number of states are considering legislation to effectively nullify any future national health care plan.