Idaho, Virginia Take Lead in Opposing ObamaCare

18 Mar, 2010 by Dave Blount

Print this article Font size -16+

Our federal system wasn’t designed so that the government would have an extra level of taxation, but to prevent tyranny by providing a break on Washington. The radicalized Democrat leadership is testing the system with its willingness to do whatever it takes to ram through their healthcare power grab. Fortunately it looks like the system might hold up:

Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.

Maybe the movement is only symbolic. Then again, maybe not:

[Idaho Governor Butch] Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.

“The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’ ” he told reporters. “But I’ll tell you what, you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”

Meanwhile in Virginia, home of so many of the Founding Fathers who have been spinning in their graves since November 2008,

Virginia last week became the first state in the country to pass a state bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key part of bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.

Yesterday Virginia’s Attorney General sent this letter to Queen Pelousy:

March 17, 2010 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Office of the Speaker H-232, U.S. Capitol Washington, D.C. Dear Speaker Pelosi: I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under a so-called “deem and pass” rule because such a course of action would raise grave constitutional questions. Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill. This is an improper purpose under the bicameralism requirements of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, one of the purposes of which is to make our representatives fully accountable for their votes. Furthermore, to be validly enacted, the Senate bill would have to be accepted by the House in a form that is word-for-word identical (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)). Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge. A bill of this magnitude should not be passed using this maneuver. As the President noted last week, the American people are entitled to an up or down vote. Sincerely, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II Attorney General of Virginia

I was told before the Moonbat Messiah was elected that he would unite the country. If he keeps uniting us like this, we’ll have another Civil War.

On tips from Conan and Incitatus. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.