# Ten Republican state AGs to sue over health bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432 "2010-03-23T02:53:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DxZero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DxZero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DxZero)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/41 "2010-03-23T17:56:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Virginia did pass a law forbidding forcing people to buy health care insurance, which is what would give Virginia’s AG standing. > > So I don’t picture standing as an issue. But I do think that preemption, the supremacy clause, and the aforementioned taxation authority makes this case a loser for the states. Do you know if the other states have any similar laws? Is it necessary that they do to remain in the case? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/42 "2010-03-23T18:11:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t really see how that gives Virginia standing. Virginia has no jurisdiction over federal taxes. Yes, but Virginia has plenary police power to make (or forbid) people to be required to buy health care. That is, if there were no federal law on the issue, Virginia could make a law that said, “No entity in the state of Virginia can require the purchase of health care insurance.” So now there IS federal law on the issue. Where both the states and the federal government have jurisdiction to legislate, there’s a principle called federal preemption that is triggered when Congress acts in a way that directly _or indirectly_ causes a conflict. A direct conflict exists when the state and federal laws squarely oppose one another, so that an act cannot be in compliance with both. Indirect conflict exists when the state law hinders or frustrates the purpose Congress evinces when passing the federal law. See Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) for a good illustration. So now we have a state law in conflict with a federal law. That gives the AG standing. As I said above, he’ll lose on the merits. But he has standing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/43 "2010-03-23T18:14:13Z")
> [@DxZero](#): > > Do you know if the other states have any similar laws? Is it necessary that they do to remain in the case? Given the federal courts’ “case or controversy” requirement, I’d say any state in the case has to be able to point to a direct or indirect conflict between their law and the federal mandate. There’s also “field preemption,” by the way, which says that Congress can legislate in a given field and thereby show its intent to regulate the field, which may preempt a state law even if that state law doesn’t conflict with federal law. That’s not in play here. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/44 "2010-03-23T18:14:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but Virginia has plenary police power to make (or forbid) people to be required to buy health care. That is, if there were no federal law on the issue, Virginia could make a law that said, “No entity in the state of Virginia can require the purchase of health care insurance.” > > So now there IS federal law on the issue. Where both the states and the federal government have jurisdiction to legislate, there’s a principle called federal preemption that is triggered when Congress acts in a way that directly _or indirectly_ causes a conflict. A direct conflict exists when the state and federal laws squarely oppose one another, so that an act cannot be in compliance with both. Indirect conflict exists when the state law hinders or frustrates the purpose Congress evinces when passing the federal law. See Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) for a good illustration. > > So now we have a state law in conflict with a federal law. That gives the AG standing. > > As I said above, he’ll lose on the merits. But he has standing. But no one is really required to buy health care. They’re just taxed if they don’t. I think this is primarily a tax issue and Virgina has no standing to complain about federal taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/45 "2010-03-23T18:18:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But no one is really required to buy health care. They’re just taxed if they don’t. I think this is primarily a tax issue and Virgina has no standing to complain about federal taxes. Well, clearly you’ve done the research, so I won’t try to sway you any further. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/46 "2010-03-23T18:23:32Z")
I actually have done _some_ research, and I think the question of standing is valid. The federal government doesn’t need Virginia’s permission to impose a federal tax for any reason it wants. I don’t see how the state has any grounds for complaint. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/47 "2010-03-23T18:49:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I actually have done _some_ research, and I think the question of standing is valid. The federal government doesn’t need Virginia’s permission to impose a federal tax for any reason it wants. I don’t see how the state has any grounds for complaint. What did you think of the language in _Steward Machine Company_ that suggested that a key factor was the state’s acquiesence in the “invasion” of state sovereignty? That was a tax issue, too. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/48 "2010-03-23T19:14:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What did you think of the language in _Steward Machine Company_ that suggested that a key factor was the state’s acquiesence in the “invasion” of state sovereignty? That was a tax issue, too. I disagree that this was a key factor. The key factor was general welfare. [From Cardozo’s ruling](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=301&page=548): > [@](#): > > “It is one thing to impose a tax dependent upon the conduct of the taxpayers, or of the state in which they live, where the conduct to be stimulated or discouraged is unrelated to the fiscal need subserved by the tax in its normal operation, or to any other end legitimately national. It is quite another thing to say that a tax will be abated upon the doing of an act that will satisfy the fiscal need, the tax and the alternative being approximate equivalents. In such circumstances, if in no others, inducement or persuasion does not go beyond the bounds of power.” Pretty well on point, don’t you think? The issues regarding state complicity are irrelevant since the health insurance mandate does not involve the states having to do anything or be coerced into any legislation or into any involvement at all. That’s why I contnd that they don’t have any standing. This is between the federal government and federal taxpayers. The states have no business even being in the room. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/49 "2010-03-23T19:25:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Im just a blowhard, not a lawyer, so I have a question for those who actually know what they’re talking about. Could there be a question of standing for the states filing these lawsuits? After all, the states themselves aren’t being required to do anything, are they? Could an argument be made that a suit can only be brought by an individual who has been taxed for not buying insurance? > > The Court has used issues of standing before to avoid adjudicating thorny issues (e.g. _Newdow_). This part of the HCR [del]bill[/del] law does not go into effect until 2014. Could the Court at least temporarily blow off the lawsuits by declaring that the states have no standing? Yes, I know that the states have drafted their own meaningless legislation saying people can’t be taxed for not buying stuff, but the states have no jurisdiction over the IRS or the federal government, so what would be their standing in these lawsuits? The courts may be able to blow off the lawsuits until 2014 because the challengers will not be able to show injury before the mandates and penalties take effect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/50 "2010-03-23T19:29:51Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I disagree that this was a key factor. The key factor was general welfare. [From Cardozo’s ruling](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=301&page=548): > > Pretty well on point, don’t you think? > > The issues regarding state complicity are irrelevant since the health insurance mandate does not involve the states having to do anything or be coerced into any legislation or into any involvement at all. That’s why I contnd that they don’t have any standing. This is between the federal government and federal taxpayers. The states have no business even being in the room. I was focusing more on: > [@](#): > > Who then is coerced through the operation of this statute? Not the taxpayer. He pays in fulfillment of the mandate of the local legislature. Not the state. Even now she does not offer a suggestion that in passing the unemployment law she was affected by duress. See Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co. (Carmichael v. Gulf States Paper Corporation), supra. For all that appears, she is satisfied with her choice, and would be sorely disappointed if it were now to be annulled. If that was not a factor, why mention it? If ti was a factor, then to what extent should it be weighed? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/51 "2010-03-23T19:30:26Z")
[It’s now 13 state AGs,](http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6926586.html) all GOP except James Caldwell of Louisiana. Hey – 13 states! You could make a **country** out of that! ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/52 "2010-03-23T19:34:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hey – 13 states! You could make a **country** out of that! Ten bucks says FOX latches onto this narrative and tries to imply that it’s significant. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/53 "2010-03-23T19:35:44Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Ten bucks says FOX latches onto this narrative and tries to imply that it’s significant. :dubious: Nothing special about that. Texas, alone, could easily be its own county. Easily. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/54 "2010-03-23T19:38:12Z")
I didn’t say it wasn’t **A** factor, I said it wasn’t the KEY factor, and the extent to which it should be weighed with regards to the health insurance mandate is zero because it’s completely off point. The states are not being coerced into anything. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/55 "2010-03-23T19:43:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > :dubious: Nothing special about that. Texas, alone, could easily be its own county. Easily. **BG** and I are referring to the original 13 states, with me further commenting that FOX would somehow use that to suggest that these lawsuits are _extra_-patriotic. So I’m not sure what your post has to do with that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/56 "2010-03-23T19:58:50Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > **BG** and I are referring to the original 13 states, with me further commenting that FOX would somehow use that to suggest that these lawsuits are _extra_-patriotic. So I’m not sure what your post has to do with that. Oh, I guess there is something special about that number. :smack: I didn’t make the connection. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/57 "2010-03-23T23:35:14Z")
It’s 14 now. And it’s a “bi-partisan” effort since Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana joined the fray. I wonder what Jindal has on him. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/58 "2010-03-23T23:42:06Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Aren’t you a lawyer? I’m assuming you took ConLaw at some point during your education. Where’s your analysis, counselor? No, he merely _claims_ to be a lawyer. I’ve never bought it. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/59 "2010-03-24T01:02:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, Nino styles himself a textualist, not an originalist. His book _A Matter of Interpretation_ is an excellent read for the nuances of the difference. Yeah I am intimately familiar with the book, I own it. It was my first book pertaining to the law that I purchased on my own volition, i.e. it was not purchased as a result of a law school class. Textualihe appeals to both. Textualism is originalism in J. Scalia’s view, when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution. J. Scalia’s goal, when interpreting the U.S. Constitution, is to ascertain how “intelligent and informed people of the time display how the text of the Constitution was originally understood…What I look in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text” Pg. 38. So, we are both right. By the way, did you enjoy the book? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432/60 "2010-03-24T02:43:31Z")
So I just flipped through the complaint filed by the AG’s. Is it normal for a [complaint](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/healthcare.pdf) (pdf) to be so…political? It reads more like campaign material for the FL AG’s upcoming race for governor then it does like an honest attempt to challenge the law. > [@](#): > > The State of Florida is a soverign state and protector of the individual freedom, public health, and welfare of its citizens and residents. Bill McCollum, Attorney General of Florida, has been directly elected by the people of Florida to serve as > their chief legal officer and exercises broad statutory and common law authority to > protect the rights of the State of Florida and its people; Fla. Const. art. IV, § 4(b). All the other AG’s just get a mention of what state their from and what there names are. Not too hard to figure out which AG’s office actually wrote the complaint. It also referes to the Bill as the new “Health Care Regime” and stresses how many pages it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ten-republican-state-ags-to-sue-over-health-bill/533432.md?page=2)