ILNews

AG to review heath-care bill's constitutionality

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Attorney General is going to use one of his little-known authorities to review the constitutionality of the provisions of the recently passed U.S. Senate federal health-care bill.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced today his office will conduct the analysis, authorized by Indiana Code 4-6-8-2, on particular provisions of Senate Amendment 2786 to the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590. Zoeller is conducting the analysis based on a request from Sen. Richard Lugar, although he received similar requests from U.S. Reps. Dan Burton and Mike Pence.

Attorneys in the AG's office will review the bill's constitutionality and its impact on state government agencies if the current version were to pass. The bill has been controversial because it provides Nebraska with federal funding for expanded obligations that all states participating in Medicaid would have to undertake.

The AG's office will review whether the provision that only funds Nebraska's obligations, but not those of other states, would be constitutionally valid.

A report will be provided to the congressional delegation and their legislative staffs in time for the House-Senate conference committee negotiations in Congress, according to the AG's office.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT