Idaho to Sue If Health Care Bill Passes

Idaho's governor is the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue the federal government if the U.S. Congress passes health care reform.

Legal experts say the measure, signed by Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter on Wednesday, will likely be struck down. But Idaho's new law reflects growing frustration with President Barack Obama's health-care proposal.

Legislation similar to Idaho's is pending in as many as 37 other states nationwide.

Democrats in the nation's capital are hoping to pass health care reform by this weekend.

The American Legislative Exchange Council created the model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.-based, nonprofit says Idaho is the first to sign a version into law.


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.

"Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Herrera, the group's health task force director.

Otter, a Republican, already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation if health reform went through. He signed the bill during his first such public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.

"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.

Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called any lawsuits over health care reform frivolous.

Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general at a cost of $100,000 a year.

Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.

"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."

More Coverage of the Health Care Reform Fight:

Dennis Kucinich to Vote Yes on Health Care
Republicans Have Used "Slaughter Solution" Many Times
Door Closed on Health Care Protesters
Cloudy Skies Start Clearing For Dems
GOP Tries to Block "Slaughter Solution" in Health Care Vote
Explainer: How the House Could Pass Health Care Reform with One Vote
Liberal Groups Turn on Dems to Pass Health Care Reform
Groups Seek to Influence Health Care Debate Without Disclosing Donors
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

[Turttie]

I want to sue everytime a republican hike taxes up to fund terrorism. Look up Ronald Reagan Iran Contra and John McCain Guerrilla. I would also sue when taxes go into hike to kill multiple countries. Only reason why people don't sue when it comes to invading and killing tons of lives in other countries; is because Republicans get the really stupid Americans on board to believe its fighting the fight on their soil before it comes to ours. Their stuff costs trillions of dollars over time while the health care with big benefits would costs us 940 billion dollars ONCE. Poor and hard working Americans are already paying getting money taken from them to keep the rich richer and people who are uninsured to be admitted to an emergency room and get examined. I can't wait for the very dumb states having to pay soo much out of pocket while the smart states enjoy the benefits and read about the dumb ones changing their minds. I will have to make sure its either recorded or I will be able to find it on the internet.

[Freetochoose]

Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. Which experts are you referring too? You know those people.. Certainly not the esteemed Dr. Edwin Vieira? You wonder why your ratings are dropping? CBS News has become irrelevant. How many Communists are in the Senate? Is is 57? I think McCarthy is going to make a comeback. Happy St. Paddy's day.

[Ess43Bee]

Your "Constitional Experts" are LIARS. The Constition DOES NOT have any power or authority about anything EXCEPT where it is SPECIFICALLY stated. See Artical One Section Eight. In case there is any doubt or arguement about that, the TENTH AMENDMENT makes it abundantly clear that ALL OTHER POWER RESTS WITH THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE. Do your own homework. Look it up. The Constitution established and organized a government with extremely limited power. It IS NOT the law of the land. IT IS THE LAW OF GOVERNMENT. It regulates Governmemt ONLY. NOT THE PEOPLE. If you are content to accept or reject my word, or or the word of anyone anyone else on this issue, you are a FOOL. Check it out yourself. You should have your own copy of Americas founding document, the declaration of independance, which established this nation in 1776 (by covenent with God) as a "Christian Common Law Republic", based upon "The Laws of Nature and Natures God" (aka the Torah) and the Constitution (ratified in 1789). Be honest with yourselves. We have Democratic Elections but a Republical form of government. All government employees, All Peace Officers, All Military, are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against ALL Enemies, forign and domestic, and to obey the LAWFULL orders of those appointed over them. This is what we are saying when we pledge oua allegience to the flag. Our loyalty is to that document and not some bureaucrat, supervisor, or even the President of the USA. Do your own homework.

[nojoy01]

"Legislation similar to Idaho's is pending in as many as 37 other states nationwide."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would only take 34 states to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the federal government from requiring citizens to pruchase health insurance. Seems like if they're really serious about keeping the federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance by their citizens then the amendment process is the way to go. No fuss, no muss, and the federales' hands are tied.

[stychokiller]

Perhaps these same 37 states (or whatever number it really is) should propose the following amendment to the US Constitution instead:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of Production and Trade."
That would remove a lot of Federal shenanigans and probably repeal a lot of boondoggles as well!

[bobdirects]

"Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states."

**THIS LINE IS A RE-HASH OF OTHER STORIES I'VE SEEN AND IT IS UNTRUE.** Perhaps these "experts" need to re-read the Constitution...especially the 10TH AMENDMENT. The tenthamendmentcenter.com is a clearinghouse of info on how states are re-claiming this LAW OF THE LAND over an overreaching federal government.

[RobAla]

I expect to see a lot of states take legal action against this federal government if this bill is signed into law.

[sjc_1]

That is their right to do so, that is how the system is suppose to work.