It just show in the USA unlike most other countries, party affiliation has little to do with it. If you realistically look at the Dems and the Reps you will soon see the parties are not really that far apart. And being only two parties, it often comes down to one side automatically opposing the choice of the other.
Wait, what does the Secretary of State have to do with it?
Thanks for an illuminating discussion. The AG’s move does strike me as political, even given the questions surrounding constitutionality. So far, I’m not convinced there’s a problem, but then I’m not a legal scholar. However, I do subscribe to the idea that general welfare very much includes the U.S. population collectively, as well as the economy and frankly, health care reform is necessary for the welfare of both.
I didn’t suggest this, so I don’t know why you need to point this out. I simply asked whether, it may be within the scope of the AG’s duty, acting in the best interest of the state of North Dakota, to inform ND’s congressional delegation that the steps they might take would compromise the State’s position with regard to constitutional law. Whether the delegation would have heeded his advice, was not an aspect of my question.
I wasn’t aware that ND announced their intent to sue prior to passage of the legislation, however. I suppose that would be a pretty good indication that the AG doesn’t approve of the legislation, but without specific legal analysis presented, it would seem as if the AG accepted their delegation to make a less than fully informed vote. Somehow, I don’t think that’s in the best interest of the constituents any of them serve. But then again, for the sake of political expediency, maybe it’s better not to show your hand before the end of the round is up.
I think you’re anthropomorphizing states.
And they will still only get it when they are sick. The multitude of middle class, even those bordering on poverty, would be making a poor financial decision to ‘buy in’ to this health plan until such time that they do need it. So you’ll end up with less money coming in, more money going out…
What does that do to the overall financing of the bill?
What’s difficult to understand about public officials acting on the state’s (i.e., it’s citizens) behalf. Are you joking? 
I dunno.
Will have to see how it plays out. Currently I am on the fence on what you bring up here since I have not seen this question answered clearly anywhere. Doubtless it will become apparent one way or another in time.
That said I think there is no question that this bill does not go far enough as far as cost controls go. The CBO scored this as overall saving money but other analysis I have read suggested while that is nice it is not enough. Health care will bankrupt the country in several decades…the cost savings simply must be deeper. At the least, if your fears are born out, I imagine they will tweak the system to plug those holes.
Given the hell it took to get this through I think we are lucky to have this much. Our legislators (both sides of the aisle) are near incapable of making meaningful reform with an eye to the future. They need a crisis where the shit is hitting the fan and there is no dodging it.
Typical politics to kick the can down the road and let someone else cope with the mess.
My point is that these offices and roles that don’t have anything to with one another. There’s just no reason why the state AG would advise the Congressional delegation. To them, he’s just another lawyer, and they have no reason to listen to him. Indeed, they would probably say that they have an independent duty to make their own determination of the bill’s constitutionality. They have their own staff attorneys to inform them about the relevant law.
Conversely, the state AG has his own duty to determine what the law is, as it applies to North Dakota. The fact that the state’s delegation voted for the law is not any kind of evidence of its constitutionality. Nor is it any reason to think that their vote represents the views of the state’s people as to the law’s constitutionality. One might just as easily argue that the views of the state’s citizens about this law are expressed via their choice of attorney general.
They elected a Congressional delegation that supports the law, and a state AG who opposes it. Which one represents their views?
I presume they have their own attorneys to tell them about the law (somewhere in there).
That said I would think the state AG might mention to the Rep/Senator that, in their view, the law they are voting on is unconstitutional and they intend to file suit to oppose the bill if it is passed.
In the end the Rep/Senator represents the interests of their state and it is at least a data point (or should be) that their state funds and resources (time of attorneys at least) will be part of the cost of passing the bill.
The Rep/Senator may well ignore all that but my point is I would hope the AG would at least send a letter of intent prior to the vote.
It doesn’t really matter what “the people” (a metaphor, recall) think about anything. That has only the most tenuous connections to what representatives do, especially in such a large institution as a state government which will have various tribes with possibility divergent goals. Scaling it up to the federal level makes the metaphor even worse.
Whack-a-Mole, that is exactly my thoughts as well. Apparently, the idea of two public servants communicating with each other in the interests of the state is a ridiculous proposition. The status quo seems to be strictly adversarial, particularly when the public servants are of different stripes.
No wonder government is such a mess. The people don’t care if they serve the people, they only care that they serve their party. Got it.
What is “the people” a metaphor for?
Why do you discount the possibility I mentioedn earlier: that each is trying to serve the people as best he can, and each has very different ideas about what would in fact best serve the people?
Because 12 out of the 13 are Republicans? Or is that just a coincidence? Or do Republicans have a corner on the market for what best serves the people?
I address this point directly in post #7.
Well, I guess I don’t discount that. It seems there are a multitude of ideas of what best serves the people. Which is why we have a party system. It’s obvious the AG’s and Representative’s ideas of how best to serve the people diverge at some point. But they both do serve the people and I think a little bit of communication among public servants goes a lot farther in serving the people than lip service does.
Yes, I understand they don’t work for each other; but, they do actually work for the same people.
Sure. But in this case, where both are confident that they’re on the right track – that is, the reps are confident health care reform is the right step, and the AG is confident that health care reform is violative of the Constitution, there’s not much to be gained by having that dialog. Apart from announcing ahead of time that they’d be filing suit, do any of us think that the representative from North Dakota would say, “Wow, I just got this letter from the AG – looks like he’s serious about this constitutional concern. OK, staff – full stop.”
And of course the rep has a duty independent from the AG to assess the constitutionality of the law, and he may well, in good faith, disagree with the AG.
Take me, for instance. I don’t favor the law that was just passed, but I dislike it as a matter of wise policy; I believe it to be constitutional. So if I worked for the rep, I might say, “The AG is planning on filing suit, and he believes the law is unconstitutional, but I disagree with him, and I believe the weight of modern legal authority is on my side.”
Meanwhile, the AG is saying, “We have sixty years of bad law, and it’s time to take a stand and give the courts the chance to do the right thing and change it!”
Both are sincere in their beliefs. This is why we have courts. 
I suppose the question that remains is whether you think these AGs would be filing suit if the bill was passed by a Republican Congress and championed by a GOP President - and/or if the bill had obvious popular support (say, 60% of poll respondents approved).
No, I don’t.
But that doesn’t go to their sincerity, but to their assessment of practicality.
They may be saying, “Here’s an unconstitutional bill, passed by the Democrats and disliked by a plurality of the populace. Finally, we can do the right thing and it won’t kill us politically. To the courthouse!”
And had it been passed by the GOP, or if it enjoyed 60% approval, perhaps they’d be saying, “Yet another step down the line of commerce clause abuse, and what sucks worse is we can’t attack it without killing ourselves politically. Sucks to be us.”
I would hope the AG would make his/her intent known to their state’s representatives.
The Reps would not go to full stop but they might ask the AG what, in particular, seems to be the problem. The Rep then might work to address those concerns and make the bill more palatable as a legal matter to the AG. Or not.
Just seems the AG would serve their state better by giving the state’s reps a heads-up allowing them a chance to maybe address those concerns while crafting the bill prior to passage.