« Outdoor Life's top conservationist poll -- vote for a hunter | Main | 14 Amendment roundup »
equal protection and Nebraska's exemption
In order to get 60 votes for cloture, the Senators pushing the health care bill gave residents of Nebraska special and permanent Medicare benefits. It sounds to me as if it might be violative of equal protection (or the EP component of 5th Amendment due process). A body of people are given an exemption from general law for no rational purpose ... it's just their legislator wanted it as the price of his vote. (On the other hand, it might be argued that appropriations work like this all the time).
10 Comments | Leave a comment
Trouble is, where do you draw the line? Tax laws have exemptions and exceptions everywhere, not to mention different brackets. I don't think the courts want to step into that briar patch.
"... Nebraska special and permanent Medicare benefits."
I believe that should be Medicaid not Medicare benefits. Medicaid is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government, and is managed by the states. In Nebraska's case, the Senate volunteered the US taxpayers to foot the entire bill.
Rep. Nelson - the $300 million dollar whore@!
The 14th ONLY applies to states NOT the feds. The Feds are exempt from EEO, Affirmative Action, etc.
When you make the rules, you make them to suit yourself. That's the problem. Learn the Constitution and demand adherence. There are no implied powers - only liars and power thieves make that claim - or maybe those who have issues with comprehension of the granted powers.
Spending is limited to the needs of the political body - the United States. There is no power for the fed to spend one red cent for States or for Indivdiduals. You won't find those terms in the Constitution. Every grant of power is as narrow as it appears. But then it takes brain power to discover the truth.
Instead of making up an EP part of due process in the 5th why not use the just compensation part? When the government takes my property in the form of taxes, the 5th requires the government to compensate me justly for that taking. Taking my money (blood and sweat of my work) and giving it to another is hardly just compensation.
No laaw is legitimate that treats members of society differently. The concept of equal protection is central to necessary and proper laws. John Randpolph Tucker, 1899.
Tiocfaidh ar la! (OUR day WILL come!)
This is the same governor that held out on signing the TARP bill unless there was a provision in it that gets him $0.40 per carbon arrow sold in this country. This really put a hurting on bowhunters and archers.
In the end, the consideration given Nelson is illusory. No Congress can bind a subsequent Congress. Congress will want the money and the other states will squeal loudly when they see the burden they are paying. It won't last -- and Nelson knows it.
This is a cover for something else. Nelson obtained something real that he does not want disclosed. or, worse, he was on board all along and just needed cover at home. Or both.
And, O'Bobblehead made the statement, (paraphrased) "We overcame special interest groups." Special interest groups like @60% of the American public? He apparently doesn't feel that the state of Nebraska is a "special interest group" or that buying votes counts as kowtowing to special interests.
Where's the rep who yelled "Liar" when we really need him?
And, O'Bobblehead made the statement, (paraphrased) "We overcame special interest groups." Special interest groups like @60% of the American public? He apparently doesn't feel that the state of Nebraska is a "special interest group" or that buying votes counts as kowtowing to special interests.
Where's the rep who yelled "Liar" when we really need him?
[W-III]
Oh, you mean that we're actually going to pay attention to old fashioned things like the Constitution again? Sorry, but I must have missed the memo. In that case, where does Congress get the authority to mandate insurance coverage, run a health insurance program of its own, or tell me and my insurance carrier what sorts of thing have to be included in my coverage whether I want them or not? Oh, yeah. Wickard v. Filburn. I guess.
SgtDad: I think the Nelson deal might well stand, as one among many. It's getting attention now, but it's no different in kind from the three counties in Florida, the Louisiana purchase of Landreau's vote, and the special rates for blue states with particularly high unemployment. Especially considering Reid's statement that “If they don’t have something in it important to them then it doesn’t speak well of them.” That should have been front-page, Democrats-declare-war-on-the-country news, but apparently its just accepted now.
What I think we'll see in the health care bill after enactment is a de facto two-tier system by state Senatorial representation. Red states get hit hardest by regulations and taxes, while blue states get exemptions from both. It's concealed on the surface because every smart, corrupt Democrat Senator demanded a different deal, but it's there in effect, especially once the dumb corrupt Democrat Senators wake up and demand their own separate accomodations.
Gee. this sounds like a violation of the "priviliges and immunitys" clause of the 14th amendment. If rationed health care isn't a "benefit" created solely by the federal government, I don't know what is.