Idaho Becomes First State to Sign Law Against Obamacare
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 3:58 PM
Idaho became the first state today to sign into a law legislation against Obamacare.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
The AP reported:
Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter on Wednesday became the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health reforms that force residents to buy insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states nationwide.
Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the movement reflects a growing national frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
Democrats are hoping to pass a version of the reform by this weekend.
Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho’s new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Republican Military Hero & First Female to Command Fighter Squadron Will Announce Run For Congress Today
Published February 8, 2012 at 8:42 pm - 108 Comments
Major Kong commented:
Good! Excellent! If this monstrosity is foisted upon the American people, inundate the judicial system with lawsuits. Filing for immediate injunctive relief in same should be a given. Tie the bastards up in litigation.
Joe commented:
Never been to Idaho, don’t know anyone from there, but…thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
Alana commented:
Good.
Scott commented:
Virginia signed a law a couple of weeks ago making individual mandates to buy health insurance illegal.
I think Idaho is 2nd.
ADVERTISEMENT
11B40 commented:
Greetings:
A bit of folk wisdom from the Bronx of my youth:
“I don’t know if I would go after a guy named “Butch”, but he certainly wouldn’t be the one I’d start with.”
Andreas K. commented:
Shall I say it?
Shall I?
Yes, I will, and since I’m not American I can get away with it, too!
The new secession has started. Time for the new American revolution.
Gman commented:
I have only driven through Idaho a few times but I tell ya. I wouldn’t mind living there. That place is beautiful!
newrouter commented:
“Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.”
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
chili palmer commented:
AP uses its standard “experts say” phrase, followed by their personal view of how things should be. They make a blanket statement that federal law supercedes state law. There are many cases in which this is not true.
2klbofun commented:
Only 37 states, what about the other 20?
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
2klbofun
March 17th, 2010 | 4:52 pm | #10
Only 37 states, what about the other 20?
BHO? Is that you?
Espresso Logic - The 6th Sense commented:
Scott
March 17th, 2010 | 4:06 pm | #4
Virginia signed a law a couple of weeks ago making individual mandates to buy health insurance illegal.
I think Idaho is 2nd.
Virginia is placing it on the November ballot. Idaho has passed it into law. Idaho is first.
dnb commented:
Which states? How many have democrat governors?
bg commented:
++
Amen & a thumbsup!!
==
mark commented:
What other states? Is California on the list?
Here’s how things are going to play out if this thing passes. States and individuals are going to sue the White House for unconstitutionally requiring the purchase of services from the Gov’t.
And after these lawsuits bubble up, you can rest assured after the White House assault on the Supreme Court that the Supremes will hear the cases. The main issue here is that all these legal procedures are going to cost taxpayers billions of more dollars—and the White House is supposed to be saving money right? Sure they are.
Rio commented:
Here’s a website with some bells and whistles to keep track of the states with pending legislation. Updated yesterday.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18906
bitterclinger commented:
Rio, thanks for the link.
Being a Virginian, I was pretty sure I didn’t have to abide by Hell Care. Here’s what I copied from the state legislatures site:
Virginia became the first in the nation to enact a new statute section titled, ” Health insurance coverage not required.” It passed March 4 and became law on March 10, 2010; see SB 283 and related bills below.
blackelkspeaks commented:
Idaho is what Texas wants to be when it grows up…
Idaho Doug commented:
I love Butch, mainly because the libs here HATE him. His first response to shrinking state revenues was “across the board” budget cuts, not higher taxes or borrowing. We’re even courting folks from our neighboring states, you know Washington and Oregon, where they’ve just voted to relieve those “evil” rich folks of any extra money they might have lying around. You know, for the good of everyone…ha ha ha
Franklin commented:
“Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.”
Whaaa? Since when?
Indy Voter commented:
Nice job Idaho…
For those of us stuck w/ Democrats for Gov, State Senate and General Assembly, we are working to flip our state in 2010…
Jim commented:
A couple of people have pointed this out already, but who are these “experts” on the Constitution? Since when does federal law supercede the Constitution? The 10th Amendment makes it very clear that the states do, in fact, have the right to reject federal laws. These are the same sort of “constitutional experts” as Obama. Which is to say an expert that does not like the Constitution at all. The AP is either biased or stupid… or both.
Adrienne commented:
Proud to be from Idaho…
Aussie commented:
Since the “constitutional law experts” are not named, I would think that they are of the same caliber as Dr. Utopia…. they are expert on nothing.
I am not a citizen of the USA and it has been my understanding that the opposite is true… the rights of the state trump the rights of federal.
That is why this kind of health “reform” has always failed. I might add that one reason why the original Hillary bill died (and it was based on the Australian model, so it would not have been as bad as the current monstrosity) is that it was unconstitutional due in part to state rights. It was also my understanding that even the collection of taxes belongs to the states but that there was an amendment that made it legal for the feds to do the collecting….
This is a similar situation to the situation in Australia. The state rights actually trump the rights of the Federal government. They had to seek to get the right to levy income taxes. It was not originally a right of the Feds to levy income taxes, they took it over, just like they did with the Arbitration Commission.
Moon Pie commented:
Where the HELL is Texas on this?
BHG commented:
The states regulate insurance. States that have the most socialistic coverage are the onew with the most expensive insurance premiums.
Which us why Sebelius is a complete idiot writing to insurers asking them to justify their premium hikes. My response to the b…. – see state insurance commissioners, moron.
They must think we’re all as ignorant as their besotted and irrational followers.
Brett commented:
The States only have the Rights if those Rights are not specifically spelled out in the US Consitution. For example, if a State wants to get rid of Free Speech OR The Right To Bear Arms, they can not since those are specifically delineated in the Consitution. As far as health care, I regret to inform those who are dying to have this program, that it is UnConstitutional, and therefore illegal. The States not only have the Right to reject it, they can actually engage more severe action, perhaps including penalties, jail time, and prehaps secession over something this serious.
Look to Texas, Louisiana, Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Alaska to start a movement to seceed if this colossial debacle of a liberal coup actually gets voted into law. And look for the People wanting to take up arms (literally) if this is forced through without even holding a vote – that would be the reason to take out the pitch forks – is the expression I have heard.
Either way, we should not even be having this discussion!