Wednesday, December 23, 2009
News Perdue asks attorney general to review health care bill
Posted by Thomas Wheatley @thomaswheatley on Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Gov. Sonny Perdue today asked state Attorney General Thurbert Baker to join legal eagles in seven other states and review the constitutionality of the federal health care bill — and whether exemptions allegedly promised by Senate Leadership to two Democratic senators meet the letter of the law.
The bill, which supporters say would help approximately 30 million Americans obtain health insurance, is scheduled for an 8 a.m. vote tomorrow in the U.S. Senate.
Perdue writes in a letter to Baker :
The leadership of Congress, particularly Senate leadership, understands the financial devastation that is looming for states, which is clearly evidenced by the special deals that have been cut for states that have Democratic Senators with wavering support of the reform. In order to calm the concerns, Senate leadership has granted special exemptions with additional federal dollars to cover the substantial increases in Medicaid costs for a few states while leaving the rest of us to foot the entire bill.
The governor references reports that Senate leadership struck a deal with Sens. Ben "Great Hair" Nelson of Nebraska and Mary "Can't Stop the Silver Fox" Landrieu of Louisiana, two Democratic lawmakers whose votes were crucial for its passage. After the chamber's bigwigs allegedly offered language that would permanently exempt Nelson's state from Medicaid costs and offer additional benefits to Louisiana, the two lawmakers supported the measure.
Sam Olens, a Republican attorney general candidate, has also urged Baker to investigate the matter.
The attorney general — who's also a Democratic gubernatorial candidate — could not be reached for comment. We've put in a call with Perdue's office to ask why the governor is asking the state to investigate federal legislation before it's even been enacted. We'll update when we hear word.
UPDATE 12/24, 10:43 a.m.: Well, our cell phone carrier decides to notify us late at night that we received a voicemail from Perdue spokesman Bert Brantley. Considering it's Christmas Eve, we're not gonna harangue the guy. Brantley and Baker spoke with the AJC yesterday about Perdue's request. Those comments and the governor's full letter are after the jump. And, oh yeah, the Senate passed the bill this morning.
In response, Baker indicated he wouldn't do anything until health care legislation runs its course."At this point we have no idea what will be in the law or even if there will be a final version of this law, so there is absolutely nothing to investigate, probe or challenge," Baker said. "No one can challenge the legality of legislation before it is enacted into law."
Bert Brantley, spokesman for Perdue, said it will be too late to fix the bill once Congress signs off.
“If you wait until it’s final, it’s too late,” he said. “Whether it becomes a bill or not, these deals have still been cut. And carving three, four or five states out for special treatment is still a problem.”
Perdue's letter to Baker:
The Honorable Thurbert BakerAttorney General of Georgia
Dear Attorney General Baker:
RE: H.R. 3590 - “Health Care Reform”
The debate over healthcare policy in Washington, DC has reached a critical juncture now that 60 Senators have agreed to support the latest bill unveiled by Sen. Harry Reid over this past weekend. Under the House and Senate proposals, state spending on Medicaid will increase dramatically and Governors of both parties have repeatedly objected to the path we appear to be rushing toward. One of my Democratic Governor colleagues even called this bill “the mother of all unfunded mandates.”
The leadership of Congress, particularly Senate leadership, understands the financial devastation that is looming for states, which is clearly evidenced by the special deals that have been cut for states that have Democratic Senators with wavering support of the reform. In order to calm the concerns, Senate leadership has granted special exemptions with additional federal dollars to cover the substantial increases in Medicaid costs for a few states while leaving the rest of us to foot the entire bill. Senator Reid’s recent compromise to obtain the support of Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the most striking example where the federal government would cover one hundred percent of the cost of all newly eligible Medicaid enrollees in just the State of Nebraska. In addition, the health care legislation grants an additional $300 million in Medicaid aid to the State of Louisiana which secured Senator Mary Landrieu’s support – a deal many are calling the new “Louisiana Purchase.”
Yesterday, seven Attorneys General from across the country confirmed that they are looking at the constitutionality of these special deals. As I have considerable concerns over the constitutionality of these recent actions, I respectfully request that you join your colleagues from Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas and Washington state in investigating the constitutionality of these special exemptions in the health care legislation and explore the availability of any legal challenges that Georgia could pursue to oppose this unconscionable scenario.
Congress appears to be on the cusp of making a decision that will have ripple effects for decades to come. Now is the time to ensure that any decision that is made has been thoroughly vetted and deemed to meet the intent and spirit of our country’s Constitution.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely
Governor Sonny Perdue
(File photo by Joeff Davis)
Comments (11)
Showing 1-11 of 11
"Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of the individual mandate, or of health care reform generally, it would be surprising if the Constitution prohibited a democratic resolution of the issue. Happily, it does not." --Emory Constitutional Law Professor Robert Shapiro in the AJC Hey, Sonny, instead of wasting the AG's time, why don't you call up Saxby and Johnny and tell them to leverage "Yes" votes into $200 million for Georgia? They could cut that deal by breakfast tomorrow.
like
dislike
How would you feel if a law professor said the exact opposite thing based on Constitutional enumeration?
A different opinion - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103033.html To the point of selling a vote... thank God some people have principals.
Only Georgia would have a lily-livered governor ask a half-assed attorney general to review a bill that is not yet law.
perdue HAS been a disaster as governor, no doubt. but i think his point is correct here. certain states shouldn't be exempted from the same responsibilites the rest of us labor under for the sake of a vote.
Horse trading to pass laws has occurred since the dawn of time. It's reality versus being good or bad. Why should things be different with health care? And by the way, how many governors complain when their state gets a new military base or a federal office, ofetn to swing the vote of a Senator or a Representative?
DaleC, I wish I was in town to read Fresh Loaf when this post was recent. I could tell you that the Constitutional Law analysis you link to in the Post is WAY off. Yes, the Supreme Court said Congress's power under the Commerce Clause is not unlimited. So they couldn't say that (1) establishing gun-free school zones (the Lopez case) and (2) giving women who are victims of sexual assault a right to sue (the Morrison case) are really doing anything to regulate interstate commerce. But it's a real stretch to say that requiring people to buy a product like insurance is NOT regulating interstate commerce. What could be commerce more than the buying and selling of products, such as health insurance? Doesn't matter that we aren't talking about a tangible object, it's still a product sold in commerce. And the decision to buy or not to buy insurance has innumerable effects on other areas of commerce....from the drain on the economy when sick workers can't get treatment to, well, the potential windfall to insurance companies if everybody buys their product. All this to say, it's pretty clearly within Congress's commerce clause power to put the "Individual Mandate" requirement in the health reform bill. Maybe someone can make an argument that it violates individual freedom. I would find such an argument unpersuasive, but at least it has some ground to stand on, unlike the argument in that WaPost article.
Where does the power of the Fed stop? If they can mandate that I buy health insurance, can they mandate I only buy a Ford or blue socks? Interstate commerce is almost as Constitutionally tortured as privacy. Health insurance is not interstate, otherwise I would be able to buy health insurance across state lines, just as I do car insurance. Health insurance is specifically limited by state lines, therefore arguably no Fed nexus for interstate commerce. Of course, that does not mean that the Fed and the courts will not completely ignore the Constitution. Like Pelosi said "Is that a serious question?".
So, to follow your logic regulating commerce = requiring purchase of a product. Do you have a precedent? Talk about a stretch.
To address your first, more legitimate question, the Supreme Court has thus far placed 2 specific limits on the Commerce Clause power in a couple of cases. Basically, they said that one law banning guns near schools and another law giving women who were victims of sexual assault a right to sue their attackers for damages....neither of those laws fall under Congress's commerce clause power. So sayeth the Supreme Court. However, the Court later held that laws prohibiting the purchase and sale of marijuana (even in states that legalized medical marijuana) fall under the Commerce Clause. The take-away point? If the regulated activity really has nothing to do with commerce (buying and selling) - and activities like carrying a gun to school and sexually assaulting a woman can't really be characterized as commercial - then they aren't within the commerce clause. Also, the argument that something is only purchased within a state doesn't work under longstanding Supreme Court precedent if the commercial activity (buying and selling of insurance) affects interstate commerce. And, frankly, most things do. So, yeah, that creates a very broad power. And then we come to your question: Where does the power of the federal government end? Well, for one thing, there's the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments. For instance, if Congress passed a law giving you the right to purchase a human being who lives in Wyoming and make that person your slave, that's certainly interstate commerce. So it would fall within the Commerce Clause powers. BUT, it would of course be prohibited by the 13th Amendment. IF someone were to try and argue that the health care bill is unconstitutional, then that's the tack they should take. So far, I haven't seen any convincing argument on that front. And don't get me started on the claim that horse-trading which benefits a certain state is unconstitutional. However unsavory the practice, it's been how laws were created since the dawn of our nation. It ain't pretty, but since bringing home pork is usually pretty popular with the state/congressional district that receives the pork, it ain't going to end any time soon. Wordy legal analysis DONE.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Time and Place: Read between the lines
To me this photo is about doing your own thing and following your own path in life.
-
Vernon Jones wants to return to the Gold Dome and other interesting qualification tidbits 1
Qualifying period ends, dust settles, campaigns begin
-
Suspects in Pittsburgh gay bashing slated to go to trial Tuesday
The men accused of beating Brandon White in Southwest Atlanta already headed to court
- More »
More by Author
-
Why we're sticking with Occupy Atlanta 50
'Our goals are about building community, demanding democratic control, and giving voice to the voiceless'
-
Atlanta airport needs 1,500 people to pretend they can afford plane tickets 3
International terminal will undergo a test run and needs volunteers
- More »
