So If Four States Have Signed Laws Blocking The Bill...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Four states thus far have signed legislation to block the Federal Health Care bill from affecting their state.

I'm sure more will follow.

So the question is, what happens?

Stale mate? Federal instrusiveness/pentalties?

Civil War?

This could get interesting...

I wouldn't be surprised to see all states who have filed lawsuits to do their own blocks as well.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Four states thus far have signed legislation to block the Federal Health Care bill from affecting their state.

I'm sure more will follow.

So the question is, what happens?

Stale mate? Federal instrusiveness/pentalties?

Civil War?

This could get interesting...

I wouldn't be surprised to see all states who have filed lawsuits to do their own blocks as well.

That is really just blustering by a republican governor or state congress. They really don't have much to enforce without risking losing federal funding which would be catastrophic for a state.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That is really just blustering by a republican governor or state congress. They really don't have much to enforce without risking losing federal funding which would be catastrophic for a state.

Not necessarily. Depends on the state and depends on the measures they would take.

For some states, they get pretty much 100% of their money back that goes to the Fed, so essentially, they could just stop sending it to begin with. An ultimate form of protest per se.

[kapsig1295 0]

The thing is the states can fuss as much as they want, it will not matter. Here in Kansas they tried to pass an amendment to our constitution to prevent the adoption if it passed. They neglected to look at the supremacy clause in the US Constitution that insures federal law trumps state law. So it seems to be Congress people (men/women) fluffing feathers so that they appear to be doing something in an election year.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The thing is the states can fuss as much as they want, it will not matter. Here in Kansas they tried to pass an amendment to our constitution to prevent the adoption if it passed. They neglected to look at the supremacy clause in the US Constitution that insures federal law trumps state law. So it seems to be Congress people (men/women) fluffing feathers so that they appear to be doing something in an election year.

The supremecy clause makes the constitution the law of the land and it's a trump card, not any other Federal law.

A state can block Federal laws all they want, per the 10th amendment.

If congress wants a health care bill to be the law of the land, they would have to make it a constitutional amendment. However, for that to happen it also has to be adopted by a 2/3 majority of states as well.

We'd be in a lot of deep cowpie if all Federal Laws were indeed the law of the land. It's the reason why the Federal Government can't legally block Marijuana, can't legally make a federal drinking age, etc..

[SMOKE 1,426]

So the question is, what happens?

most likely....the residents of those states pay the federal taxes & residents of those states don't get the benefits.

its law now. the only hope for blocking it..until the next pres. election...coz the repubs aren't going to get 67 seats in the senate & ??? in the house this november... is a supreme court decision barring the mandate...which isn't very likely. grab your ankles & get use to it.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Not necessarily. Depends on the state and depends on the measures they would take.

For some states, they get pretty much 100% of their money back that goes to the Fed, so essentially, they could just stop sending it to begin with. An ultimate form of protest per se.

It's still not going to happen. These are symbolic gestures, not legitimate rebellion.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The supremecy clause makes the constitution the law of the land and it's a trump card, not any other Federal law.

A state can block Federal laws all they want, per the 10th amendment.

You've got to be kidding.

If congress wants a health care bill to be the law of the land, they would have to make it a constitutional amendment. However, for that to happen it also has to be adopted by a 2/3 majority of states as well.

We'd be in a lot of deep cowpie if all Federal Laws were indeed the law of the land. It's the reason why the Federal Government can't legally block Marijuana, can't legally make a federal drinking age, etc..

The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's still not going to happen. These are symbolic gesturesThis is grandstanding, not legitimate rebellion.

fixxored.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution.

Figuring health care is very localized in nature, it really wouldn't fall under the commerce clause. On top of that as well, 'regulation' is a term that becomes bastardized when the government tries to control an entire industry.

[Kevin and 10]

The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution.

The commerce clause was never used to force people into purchasing a service from private industry.

[lucyrich 20]

Not necessarily. Depends on the state and depends on the measures they would take.

For some states, they get pretty much 100% of their money back that goes to the Fed, so essentially, they could just stop sending it to begin with. An ultimate form of protest per se.

But the money they send is largely in the form of income and FICA taxes paid by the state's residents and corporations. Are you saying the states will forbid individuals from paying Federal taxes and instead force them to remit that money to the state treasury?