Indiana Attorney General to review Constitutionality of Federal Health Care Overhaul

[rambone]

Good news. Indiana is taking a stand.

Indiana Attorney General, is the Healthcare Bill Legal, Constitional?


Finally, someone in Indiana is starting to act like a representative of the people and ask that the Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller take a look into the constitutionality of the healthcare bill. The GOPs are doing what they were hired to do and that is to protect the people of Indiana. Interesting that not a single democrat has stood up and demanded accountability from the federal government, demanding that all legislation, especially this push by the feds to control the entire population through this power grab called healthcare reform, be held up to the light and read for its constitutionality.

Every person elected to office has to swear on oath to uphold the constitution. No politician should have any problem with a review of any legislation to make sure that the federal government is not overstepping the limited powers granted to them by the people.

Pete Visclosky and Evan Bayh each voted FOR this federal takeover with Bayh voting ‘yes’ twice. Their pal Ben Nelson, the guy who got Nevada a sweet payoff deal in exchange for his yes vote on healthcare reform asked all of the AG’s to ‘call off the dogs‘

Meanwhile, you can add the Indiana’ s AG to the list that Ben Nelson originally complained about. You have the republican party to thank for growing a set and demanding that the federal government and the dems currently in control of America be held accountable for their proposed takeover of 1/6th of our economy via this healthcare legislation.

The entire article can be found here.

A snip is posted below.

WASHINGTON — At the request of some Indiana Republicans, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is reviewing the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul bill passed by the Senate last month.

Several Republican senators say the bill’s requirement that most people buy insurance or face a penalty violates the Constitution’s ban on taking private property for public purposes without just compensation.

Republicans also say a provision that could treat some insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan differently violates the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause.

Republicans used those arguments to back procedural challenges to the Senate’s bill but were defeated in party-line votes before the Senate approved the bill on another party-line vote.

In a letter to Zoeller on Tuesday, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., wrote that because votes on procedural challenges took place only five days after the bill’s final language was made public, there was not enough time to study the constitutional issues.

Indiana law allows the attorney general to make “any reasonable or appropriate investigation or study” of federal legislation when asked to do so by a member of the state’s congressional delegation.

“This little-known provision in state law was intended for a circumstance such as this, where proposed federal legislation could have a sweeping impact on state government,” Zoeller said.

Zoeller said he will look at other issues not specifically requested in Lugar’s letter, including a provision added by Democrats to gain the support of Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson. The federal government would pick up all of Nebraska’s share of the cost of a proposed expansion of Medicaid but pay only for most of the expansion in other states.
​

In that same article it says,

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, a self-described progressive legal association, has written a brief arguing that the bill’s insurance mandate is constitutional because Congress has the authority to regulate commerce and set taxes.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that he doesn’t think “that anybody has legitimate constitutional concerns about the legislation.”
​

When you read the word ‘progressive’ read ’socialist’. The socialist party took on the mantra of ‘progressive’ because it was a politically sexy word that hid who they are and covers up what they really want to do.

I say that there is no way the feds can hide behind the commerce clause in that this healthcare legislation demands and requires the people to purchase something, and that is it’s own right is unconstitutional. What is next? The feds own GM, and GM’s profits are falling, so the feds say ” From now until the end of 2011, the only cars available for your purchase will be GM cars.” ?