MN AG will file briefs defending the federal mandate in ObamaCare

posted at 1:53 pm on April 6, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

While more than a dozen state Attorneys General plan to challenge the individual mandate of ObamaCare in court, Minnesota’s Lori Swanson has a different idea.  She plans to defend the expansion of federal power by filing amicus briefs on behalf of the Obama administration.  This puts the Minnesota Attorney General on a collision course with Governor Tim Pawlenty, who pledged to find another way to fight the mandate:

Minnesota’s Republican governor and Democratic attorney general are locked in a clash of wills over the national health reforms that have sparked political confrontations across the country.

On Monday, Attorney General Lori Swanson responded to Pawlenty’s request that she consider having Minnesota join other states in suing the federal government. Swanson not only declined, but informed Pawlenty that she will file a friend-of-the-court brief defending the new health care law.

She pointed out in her letter to him that Pawlenty can always file his own friend-of-the-court brief to side with the states fighting the law.

That prompted this response from Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung: “Governor Pawlenty intends to participate in this litigation.” He refused to comment on whether the governor would file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting lawsuits filed by other states, hire his own lawyer or participate in some other way. “We are going to consider our options,” McClung said in an e-mail.

Swanson, a Democrat (DFL in Minnesota), argues in a letter to Pawlenty that Congress has wide latitude to control interstate commerce.  That is true, but it is equally true that there is no interstate commerce in health insurance; Congress has blocked it.  What Congress proposes to do with ObamaCare is to control intrastate non-commerce — specifically, the choice of consumers not to carry health insurance, or at least not the “approved” version based on standards imposed by Congress.

In order to support this position, Swanson notes that Congress created Medicare and Medicaid, and that should act as precedent.  This is not a new argument; Democrats in Congress offered it during the health-care debate, mainly last summer.  It fails on its face.  Neither program mandates membership.  In fact, one of the big issues of the uninsured is that millions of them already qualify for Medicaid but haven’t enrolled.  However, the creation of Medicare has successfully crowded out private insurance for seniors, leaving them with few options other than government largesse.

Swanson has to stand for re-election in November after a single term in office.  Pawlenty won’t let this drop in the meantime, which will mean that Swanson may largely have to campaign on her choice to enable federal encroachment and the imposition of the IRS as the enforcer of a health-insurance mandate on taxpayers.  Even in a state as liberal as Minnesota, that’s going to be a tough sale.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Everyone knows this mandate IS MOST CERTAINLY CONSTITUTIONAL …

because the Constitution says the Federal government is supposed to look out for our best interests or something.

HondaV65 on April 6, 2010 at 3:36 PM

My guess is that Texas as a whole will continue to moderate a bit over the next twenty years as more people from blue states (and from Mexico) move here…

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Ah yes, slouching towards Gomorrah.

daesleeper on April 6, 2010 at 3:36 PM

If the AGs’ lawsuit is a loser, why shouldn’t the GOP pay back the costs of that lawsuit?

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 2:23 PM

You see Jimbo, the STATE AG’s job is to look out for STATE soveriegnty. Not destroy STATE soveriegnty. Therefore, it’s not about the party picking up the tab. It’s about the AG looking out for their STATE, not the federal government trying to usurp the STATE soveriegnty. See how that works?

Big John on April 6, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:19 PM

I’m so glad you can be so sanguine about it. Ah, yes, the “swagger and edge”. We will “moderate” a bit. Maybe elect a few more moderate reps like mine, Sheila Jackson Lee.

I think you might be missing the point. Obamacare imposes huge new medicare costs on Texas. We will have no choice but to impose a state income tax.

chris999 on April 6, 2010 at 3:29 PM

–The health care bill also has a large amount of federal funds going to states to help pay for Medicare.

Does my not purchasing health care affect interstate commerce more than not buying a loaf of bread?

If not, can the Government force me to buy a loaf of bread of the “approved style/brand/etc.” against my will under this “interstate commerce” because my lack of purchase affects commerce?

Is there any good, service, or product imaginable where the lack of purchase of this product doesn’t affect “interstate commerce” as you’ve defined it?

As there clearly isn’t; I guess I should get a lobbyist now to try to get the government to mandate purchases of my product over my competitors… i.e. the capitalist dream of America; where you legislate a monopoly and people are forced to buy your products whether they want to or not; or go to jail.

Add in Wickard v. Filburn (growing your own crops for your own farm use = interstate commerce) and what limitations apply to the government once the commerce clause is applied?

Anything at all? Does the Government have full power without limitation?

And if that’s the premise… why bother with having a Constitution? Just print the commerce clause on an index card and be done with it.

gekkobear on April 6, 2010 at 3:34 PM

–I think they probably could force you to buy other things under the Commerce Clause.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I wrote here that there’s reason to believe that AG Swanson didn’t bother reading the bill before deciding she wouldn’t join or initiate a lawsuit on Minnesota’s behalf.

AG Swanson has a history of being corrupt, which she learned from her boss/predecessor.

LFRGary on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

And why should the Commissioners of Collin County (a county in the DFW metroplex) have anything to do with the lawsuit, except that they’re all GOP?

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 2:44 PM

and ELECTED OFFICIALS as such by the PEOPLE of Collin County.

Big John on April 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Jimbo,

I know a lot of Jimbo’s in TX, but I don’t think I know any quite as assuming as you. I happen to be a democrat and have been one all my adult life(62YO). This health care mandate is an overreach of the federal government on the rights of the citizenry. The court may not strike it down, by I assure you the People will not let it stand. The incremental encroachment of the federal government has happened over the past 150 years, but it has accelerated over the last 4 years(ever since Pelosi and crew took charge). This encroachment will have little affect on my life , but it will deny the same opportunity that my parents and their parents worked and sacrificed to give my generation, from successive generations. My generation is going to snatch it away from the next generation because they got theirs and to hell with the next generation. I find that just a little more than arrogant and self-centered and I will do what ever it takes to remind all the arrogant bastards in DC that they are working and taking orders from the People, not the other way around.

belad on April 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM

And why should the Commissioners of Collin County (a county in the DFW metroplex) have anything to do with the lawsuit, except that they’re all GOP?

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 2:44 PM
and ELECTED OFFICIALS as such by the PEOPLE of Collin County.

Big John on April 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM

–So should the school board members weigh in on Obamacare? They’re elected, too.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:49 PM

My employer is going to offer HSAs next year.

ladyingray on April 6, 2010 at 3:49 PM

–I think they probably could force you to buy other things under the Commerce Clause.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

If they can force you to buy things, why can’t they force you to sell things?

If they can force you to buy and sell whatever they want you to buy and sell, what freedom do you have?

Sad that you both believe this and think it is great.

Monkeytoe on April 6, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I misspoke. Medicare, as we all know, is strictly federally financed. Medicaid funding, on the other hand, is shared by states and fed. govt. Prior to obamacare, states like Tx. and Az. had wide latitude. Now their medicaid program is completely dictated by the legislation that was just passed. And as you may have heard, the states with less generous medicaid programs are now in big trouble because they will in no way get complete funding from feds to cover obamacare medicaid. That is one of the counts of the ag suits – the second count. They are suing on 10th amendment grounds. Texas is going to be a big, big loser. As liberals are so fond of parroting “did you know Texas has one of the highest percentage of uninsured in the country???” Yes, we did. Yes, we have a huge hispanic population from Mexico, many of them illegal. And yes, unlike more generous states, our state is solvent. Get ready to shell out, friend.

chris999 on April 6, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Jimbo, haven’t school boards weighed in on mandates imposed by the State or Federal Governments before?

jpmn on April 6, 2010 at 3:55 PM

belad on April 6, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Monkeytoe on April 6, 2010 at 3:51 PM

–I think you need the individual mandate if you’re going to require policies to be written without regard to pre-existing conditions. That, to me, is just basic economics (and, it seems, most people are in favor of eliminating pre-existing condtion limits). Sorry to be so assuming, belad, but that’s the way I see it. And I do think our kids won’t have the same opportunities that we did (you’re about 7 years older than me) but I think that is more due to the US and its economy versus that of the rest of the world than any federal encroachment.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM

–Morrison involved a law prohibiting violence against women. The US argued the law should be upheld because of, in effect, the indirect effects that violence against women had on economic activity. In the healthcare insurance case, it’s clear that insurance has a direct effect on economic activity.

Really? How? How does ordering me to buy insurance or an insurer provide it affect economic activity? If I don’t buy insurance, I will still need to pay for my healthcare. If I do buy insurance someone else pays for my healthcare (I suppose, under the unicorn and rainbow Obama economics, the “rich” will pay for everyone’s healthcare).

Who pays for something is not economic activity. Economic activity is manufacturing, shipping, and selling things.

Let’s not even get into the horse droppings that the whole “economic activity” test is in the first instance in analyzing the commerce clause. Yeah, me growing tomatoes for my own use is an “economic activity” under supreme court precedent. That is so illogical and irrational that I am surprised that anyone in this country still has any faith in our legal system.

Monkeytoe on April 6, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Jimbo, haven’t school boards weighed in on mandates imposed by the State or Federal Governments before?

jpmn on April 6, 2010 at 3:55 PM

–Yes, but only as they pertain to school courses, funding, and other stuff directly relevant to schools and school kids.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Funny, the Commissioners of our county decided last night to support the Texas AG’s fight against Obamacare. I emaild them asking why they were willing to waste the taxpayers’ money in Texas against a lawsuit that they seem very likely to lose, and if the GOP was going to reimburse Texas for its legal costs if the Texas AG’s suit failed. No response yet from them (and probably never).

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 2:11 PM

I cannot speak to Texas but Idaho has set aside around a million to fight the scheme, chump change when one figures the unfunded medicaid part of the scheme would cost us $97,000,000 a year.

JIMV on April 6, 2010 at 4:04 PM

–I think you need the individual mandate if you’re going to require policies to be written without regard to pre-existing conditions. That, to me, is just basic economics

(and, it seems, most people are in favor of eliminating pre-existing condtion limits). Sorry to be so assuming, belad, but that’s the way I see it. And I do think our kids won’t have the same opportunities that we did (you’re about 7 years older than me) but I think that is more due to the US and its economy versus that of the rest of the world than any federal encroachment.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM

I’m glad you think we need it – that is hardly a constitutional argument for it. I agree that the only way Obamacare can even try to work (regardless, it will be an utter failure, much like socialized medicine in England, France, Canada, etc).

Once you take over the insurance companies and instead of insurance turn them into payers for people with illnesses – once that dictatorship move has been made and people are no longer free to contract as they see fit – then you have to force march the citizenry to pay for it by requiring them to buy in.

Regardless, it is unconstitutional. this is the type of raw grasp for power to lead to revolutions.

Monkeytoe on April 6, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Like I have always said: Minnesotans are the stupidest voters in America. When they voted for Pawlenty, they thought they were voting for the “plenty” candidate that would give them all kinds of free crap.

csdeven on April 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM

We Idahoans don’t abide this kind of crap. We are all on the same page. And the one rep that wasn’t, I guarantee you he will be gone in 2010.

csdeven on April 6, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Yes, states like Idaho and Tx are going to take it up the *** if this is not repealed. Rather, their taxpayers will.

chris999 on April 6, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Minnick did not vote for this mess, though he did vote to make Pelosi speaker.

JIMV on April 6, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Jimbo,

Does the federal government have the authority, under this mandate, to force me to work in order to generate tax revenue?

If not, I quit! No income….no tax revenue. When a majority of the producers decide that they have provided for the non-producers long enough, they too will quit, and then what is the federal government going to do..confiscate my SS, IRA, 401,…? If they do, I’m sure that the consequences won’t be what is EXPECTED, nor will it be civil.

belad on April 6, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Yes, states like Idaho and Tx are going to take it up the *** if this is not repealed. Rather, their taxpayers will.

chris999 on April 6, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Sorry, I meant to direct that comment to JIMV from Idaho.

chris999 on April 6, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Thinking outside of the ‘rational’ box here:

How long before a majority of the productive ants in society pack up and move ‘under ground’ to leave the unproductive grasshoppers to fend for themselves?

VibrioCocci on April 6, 2010 at 4:17 PM

I thought ObamaCare was about getting health care for the thousands of people literally dying in the streets everyday … well, at least that’s what they said.

Now, I find out it’s about commerce … non-existant interstate commerce at that.

darwin on April 6, 2010 at 4:23 PM

More stupidity from liberal lawyers. Phtewie!

ExpressoBold on April 6, 2010 at 4:24 PM

I thought ObamaCare was about getting health care for the thousands of people literally dying in the streets everyday … well, at least that’s what they said.

darwin on April 6, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Obamacare was about the kids … who weren’t covered right away.
Obamacare was about the 45,000 dying each year … who won’t be covered until 2014.
Obamacare was about covering the 46 million 30 million 40 million millions and millions illegal aliens abortions unfunded mandates of people who don’t have access to Medicare Medicaid CHIP programs emergency rooms affordable … what was I saying?

Don’t get anyone started on the war on poverty …

VibrioCocci on April 6, 2010 at 4:29 PM

My guess is that Texas as a whole will continue to moderate a bit over the next twenty years as more people from blue states (and from Mexico) move here…

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Don’t forget about those of us in places like Delaware who check Texas real estate regularly.

If my wife and I move to Texas like we want to do, Texas will become more conservative. In a nice way, of course.

(I had to wait to cancel cable TV until the end of the college football season last winter. My wife is a diehard Longhorn fan. We have a Longhorn flag on the wall in our front room.)

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 4:35 PM

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 4:35 PM

You might want to check out some other places like Utah, Idaho or Wyoming. The hispanic population here is exploding, and they are pretty reliable democrat voters. (They went for Obama big time.) They tend to be large consumers of social spending, so they vote for it. Also, they have a high drop out rate, so there is going to be a big push for increased school spending to combat that. The Catholic Church in this state is in favor of large increases in social spending. In 20 years or less the state will be unrecognizable. Remember when California used to have governors like Ronald Reagan or even moderates like Pete Wilson. Remember when they even had Republican senators? That’s where we are now.

chris999 on April 6, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Don’t forget about those of us in places like Delaware who check Texas real estate regularly.

If my wife and I move to Texas like we want to do, Texas will become more conservative. In a nice way, of course.

(I had to wait to cancel cable TV until the end of the college football season last winter. My wife is a diehard Longhorn fan. We have a Longhorn flag on the wall in our front room.)

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 4:35 PM

–We’ve been here about three years and really like the DFW area. It’s really good down here. My sympathies about how the Rose Bowl turned out.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 4:54 PM

–Now that IS a low blow….

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Jimbo-for the record- I don’t think you would have been a cross-dresser in colonial times.
But I do think you’da been a Tory.
But since you live in TX, I guess you can’t be all that bad.
;)

Badger40 on April 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM

–Now that IS a low blow….

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Jimbo-for the record- I don’t think you would have been a cross-dresser in colonial times.
But I do think you’da been a Tory.
But since you live in TX, I guess you can’t be all that bad.
;)

Badger40 on April 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM

–I knew you were all teasing me, but thanks just the same.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM

You might want to check out some other places like Utah, Idaho or Wyoming. The hispanic population here is exploding, and they are pretty reliable democrat voters.
chris999 on April 6, 2010 at 4:48 PM

A huge reason I left TX in ’94 & never looked back.
I loved my time in TX- ’83-’86 in HS in Tyler & 92-94 in San Antonio.
I wouldn’t trade my time there for anything.
But this little ol’ white girl had had enough of getting picked on & picked up on by all the ethnic groups down there trying to get them a blond white chick. I have never experienced such treatment in CA, WA, IN, IL, or ID or WY.
I loved WY-Laramie. The wind & the high altitude keeps the tourists away.
The Greybull-Cody & Jackson Hole areas has filled up with rich people & tourists & wannabes. Those places are now unpleasant to be around.
This is why I love SW ND. The weather is so harsh on occasion that people stay away.
It’s awesome to have virtually no neighbors.

Badger40 on April 6, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Aw teasing means people like you.
But we still think you’re crazy.

Badger40 on April 6, 2010 at 5:06 PM

My sympathies about how the Rose Bowl turned out.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 4:54 PM

“The Wife” was upset, but I haven’t paid much attention to the Roses since the Illini Slush Fund Scandal. And that was a forever ago. (I’m originally a [southern] l-noi boi)

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:06 PM

BTW Jimbo3, my wife has a friend named Jim in Grand Prairie.

But he’s a MackDaddy-ite.

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:08 PM

A huge reason I left TX in ‘94 & never looked back.
I loved my time in TX- ‘83-’86 in HS in Tyler & 92-94 in San Antonio.
I wouldn’t trade my time there for anything.
But this little ol’ white girl had had enough of getting picked on & picked up on by all the ethnic groups down there trying to get them a blond white chick. I have never experienced such treatment in CA, WA, IN, IL, or ID or WY.
I loved WY-Laramie. The wind & the high altitude keeps the tourists away.
The Greybull-Cody & Jackson Hole areas has filled up with rich people & tourists & wannabes. Those places are now unpleasant to be around.
This is why I love SW ND. The weather is so harsh on occasion that people stay away.
It’s awesome to have virtually no neighbors.

Badger40 on April 6, 2010 at 5:05 PM

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Aw teasing means people like you.
But we still think you’re crazy.

Badger40 on April 6, 2010 at 5:06 PM

–My younger daughter’s going to camp near Tyler this summer for a week. Did you like the area? Anything she should know about east Texas?

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 5:11 PM

The Wife” was upset, but I haven’t paid much attention to the Roses since the Illini Slush Fund Scandal. And that was a forever ago. (I’m originally a [southern] l-noi boi)

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:06 PM

BTW Jimbo3, my wife has a friend named Jim in Grand Prairie.

But he’s a MackDaddy-ite.

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:08 PM

–There are a bunch of Jims, Jimbos, whatever here. You’re not a Saluki are you?

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 5:12 PM

–I think they probably could force you to buy other things under the Commerce Clause.

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I don’t think they will be able to force my dead body to buy anything, because that’s where this would end up.

Liberty or death.

Fatal on April 6, 2010 at 5:14 PM

You’re not a Saluki are you?

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Yep. I lived most of my life in Murphysboro. Took some botany and plant and soil science classes at SIU-C.

Was around in the late sixties during the riots. They used to shut down Highway 50 on Friday nights for party-time.

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Utah, Idaho or Wyoming.
chris999 on April 6, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Thought about it, but, dang, it’s cold up there.

If push comes to shove, I ‘spect Texas will xxxxxx and they (hopefullu ‘we’) will be able to sort out all that other stuff. (Can we say xxxxxx?)

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:21 PM

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I’ve tried to post this comment two other times. I guess we can’t say $ecede.

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Swanson may largely have to campaign on her choice to enable federal encroachment and the imposition of the IRS as the enforcer of a health-insurance mandate on taxpayers.

As went Mass. so goes the nation. Couldn’t be a better timing…1946?

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Neither program mandates membership. In fact, one of the big issues of the uninsured is that millions of them already qualify for Medicaid but haven’t enrolled.

This is not entirely true. Each state has its own criteria for this program, but it is not only income based. It also takes into account money in the bank, assets, home ownership, even the value of your car. There are a lot of people who make less than the minimum amount for medicaid, but they might have too many assets. Here in Indiana you can not get medicaid if you have a car valued at more than about $3,000.

Terrye on April 6, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Pawlenty isn’t running for re-election…Burn some damn bridges!!!

This time next year I want to see this cow on late night TV saying “Been in an accident?!?!?…Call me at 1-800-CHASER!!”

BigWyo on April 6, 2010 at 7:09 PM

Isn’t she one of the ACORN/Soros handpicked AG’s, like the dumbass in Ohio?

budfox on April 6, 2010 at 7:24 PM

My guess is that Texas as a whole will continue to moderate a bit over the next twenty years as more people from blue states (and from Mexico) move here…

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:19 PM

The point I think you’re missing is that many perhaps most of the blue staters who came to Texas were fleeing the oppression of liberal politics. Of course, economics had a big part of it also however most of the transplants, myself included, become ardent conservative Texans very quickly. The Hispanics from the south are another question.

docdave on April 6, 2010 at 7:42 PM

How is this state so liberal? I’ve lived here since I was born in the 80s and the majority of people I talk to can’t stand Obama/liberals. WHERE are these voters? Dead?

metric on April 6, 2010 at 8:37 PM

How is this state so liberal? I’ve lived here since I was born in the 80s and the majority of people I talk to can’t stand Obama/liberals. WHERE are these voters? Dead?

metric on April 6, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Apparently you haven’t spoken to the people who work for the state’s largest employer–the State.

chickasaw42 on April 6, 2010 at 8:51 PM

There are those who sit on their couches and watch their sovereignty be stripped away and there are those who willingly give it, or in this case even fight to hand their sovereignty over to the Feds.

I’ll never understand this.

29Victor on April 6, 2010 at 11:47 PM

–I think you need the individual mandate if you’re going to require policies to be written without regard to pre-existing conditions. That, to me, is just basic economics (and, it seems, most people are in favor of eliminating pre-existing condtion limits).

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:59 PM

What is basic economics? The fact that by fiat the government can turn the producers into slaves. Yes slaves, at least that’s what it was called over 150 years ago…one segment of society laboring for the benefit of another segment of society by force of law. Where do you have a ‘right’ to take money from me without my permission?

belad on April 7, 2010 at 9:24 AM

AG Swanson,

If you have any credibility on this matter, then resign immediately. The U.S. Attorney General will look after the concerns of Minnesotans as well as you presume the U.S. Congress to do.

TugboatPhil on April 7, 2010 at 9:26 AM

This speaks volumes about the average intelligence of a Minnesotan. First they elect a nitwit like Jesse Ventura for Governor. Then they elect a nitwit like Al Franken to the Senate. And here, they’ve elected a nitwit as Attorney General. Her rationale for her amicus brief, “Congress can do anything it wants under the Commerce Clause!”

olesparkie on April 7, 2010 at 9:53 AM

The state that voted in Jesse Ventura and Stuart Smalley who is surprised their AG is taking this position?

Dr Evil on April 7, 2010 at 10:22 AM

My guess is that Texas as a whole will continue to moderate a bit over the next twenty years as more people from blue states (and from Mexico) move here…

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 3:19 PM

The point I think you’re missing is that many perhaps most of the blue staters who came to Texas were fleeing the oppression of liberal politics. Of course, economics had a big part of it also however most of the transplants, myself included, become ardent conservative Texans very quickly. The Hispanics from the south are another question.

docdave on April 6, 2010 at 7:42 PM

–Docdave, I think Texas will probably always be economically conservative. But I think it will ultimately be more libertarian that today, and DFW will no longer the foolproof “buckle” of the Bible Belt. We’ll see if I’m right…

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 11:07 AM

I find it horrifying when people(like Jimbo) talk about pre-existing conditions while ignoring how insurance actually works. This government is the solution position goes against the opinions of most Americans and the premise on which our country was founded

gitarfan on April 7, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Did you like the area? Anything she should know about east Texas?

Jimbo3 on April 6, 2010 at 5:11 PM

The state park is nice there outside of town.
Maybe that’s where she’ll be going.
I liked Tyler.

Thought about it, but, dang, it’s cold up there.

davidk on April 6, 2010 at 5:21 PM

They make coats, you know! LOL!
That’s OK.
Actually, the Cody-Greybull area doesn’t get all that cold compared to the rest of the state.
E. MT is warmer, too. Here in SW ND we kinda label ourselves in the ‘banana belt’ of the state bcs we generally enjoy 10-20 degree warmer temps than the rest of the state overall.
But it does get down into the -40s & 50s on ocassion.
You start to get cabin fever in about the end of Jan.

Badger40 on April 7, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Bible Belt. We’ll see if I’m right…

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 11:07 AM

That reminds me of the blue laws in Tyler (Smith? county?).
No alcohol except in clubs that you have to be a ‘member’ of.
And everything’s closed on Sundays.
Lotsa counties like that down there.
Don’t know if it’s still like that.

Badger40 on April 7, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Bible Belt. We’ll see if I’m right…

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 11:07 AM

That reminds me of the blue laws in Tyler (Smith? county?).
No alcohol except in clubs that you have to be a ‘member’ of.
And everything’s closed on Sundays.
Lotsa counties like that down there.
Don’t know if it’s still like that.

Badger40 on April 7, 2010 at 2:16 PM

–It’s still similar in Collin and Denton Counties (except things are not closed on Sundays). You can only buy beer and wine in stores and can only buy beer and alcohol at taverns when you’re a member. Course all it takes is ten seconds to become a member (the first time you come there) because it’s done electronically and you just sign a slip of paper. Most of the new people in the town where I live don’t understand why people can’t buy liquor locally, but instead must go to Dallas–that’s why I think we may see some liberalization on some of these laws. Thanks for the info on the state pari.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I find it horrifying when people(like Jimbo) talk about pre-existing conditions while ignoring how insurance actually works. This government is the solution position goes against the opinions of most Americans and the premise on which our country was founded

gitarfan on April 7, 2010 at 12:10 PM

–Most GOPers are hesitant to repeal all of ObamaCare because of the popularity of no pre-existing conditions exclusions. How would you handle this? Because now you can get fired from a job, lose your employer-provided insurance and be inelgible for individual insurance after you run through COBRA.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Because now you can get fired from a job, lose your employer-provided insurance and be inelgible for individual insurance after you run through COBRA.

Jimbo3 on April 7, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I’m not sure if catastrophic coverage will deny you for pre-existing conditions, but even so I agree it’s a problem.
But the whole reason that health care is unreasonably expensive in the 1st place is BCS of govt intervention by its social programs like medicare/caid.
Prices for services, as far as I am aware from speaking to many doctors, are set by the govt’s reimbursement rate bcs they have to recoup their costs elsewhere.
If the govt quit providing it in the 1st place, I’m sure we’d see a downturn in costs for services.
Look at plastic surgery.

Badger40 on April 8, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Everyone knows this mandate IS MOST CERTAINLY CONSTITUTIONAL …

because the Constitution says the Federal government is supposed to look out for our best interests or something.

HondaV65 on April 6, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Federal Mandates are unconstitutional. State mandates are not.

I know quite a few people are sneering at the multiple lawsuits challenging the federal individual mandate, but — like it or not — the states and the federal governments have different constitutional powers. States have a general “police power,” which allows them to pass laws to advance the health, safety, and (traditionally) morals of the community. The federal government is limited to its enumerated powers. Constitutional critics of Obamacare ask a common-sense question: Where in the enumerated powers of the Constitution is the federal government empowered to require citizens to purchase a product from a private entity?

Source.

I find it interesting that Conservatives supported individual mandates during the national discussion on ClintonCare in 1994 but now they oppose it.

In fact, it was the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation that proposed the idea of individual mandate in 1993.

Conservative Samizdat on April 8, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2