The Washington-Post is full of good articles this morning. Randy E. Barnett a professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University opined there are several aspects which could be challenged in the Federal Courts:
The whole purpose of the “deem and pass” procedure — which was advocated by Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter — was to avoid a separate vote on the Senate bill, which many House members find objectionable, and instead vote on the reconciliation bill and simultaneously “deem” the Senate measure passed. Although Democrats cited prior examples of deem and pass, “the Republicans did it” is not a recognized constitutional argument — especially if the public and the justices have never heard of such a thing. This constitutional objection seems to have succeeded, as House leaders decided on Saturday to take a separate vote on the Senate version, rather than “deeming” it passed.
Several states are considering measures attempting to exempt their residents from an individual health insurance mandate. While such provisions may have a political impact, none is likely to have any effect on the legislation’s constitutionality. Under the 10th Amendment, if Congress enacts a law pursuant to one of the “powers . . . delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” then that law is supreme, and nothing a state can do changes this. Any state power to “nullify” unconstitutional federal laws has long been rejected.
I know there are those who wonder if this is possible, as Barnett says no one ever expected Bush v. Gore to make it to the Supreme Court.
As I write this I am watching Representative Nunes from California a Republican talk about healthcare. This man is sticking to his republican talking points. Every other word is socialists, totalitarian, the Federal Government doesn’t work. His rhetoric is not shedding any light on the debate and only serves to further divide the nation. As Joe Friday use to say, “just the facts.”