GOP-backed health care amendment removed from Florida ballot

By Lee Logan | The Miami Herald

Calling the wording of a Republican-backed constitutional amendment on health care "manifestly misleading," a Circuit Court judge in Leon County has tossed it off the November ballot.

The proposal had been drafted and put forward by the GOP-led state legislature as a counter to the new federal health care plan. It would prohibit the state from participating in any health insurance exchange that compels people to buy insurance.

State law requires ballot summaries to be clear and accurate. Circuit Court Judge James Shelfer said a proposed ballot summary for the amendment contains several phrases that are political and list issues that are not addressed in the proposal.

The first sentence of the summary says the amendment would "ensure access to health care services without waiting lists, protect the doctor-patient relationship, (and) guard against mandates that don't work."

Shelfer said the amendment does not guarantee any of those things.

"Someone voting on the amendment, reading those introductory statements would have a false understanding of what they were voting on," he said in a ruling from the bench.

Critics and even one of its proponents acknowledged at the time that the amendment likely would not affect the national law because U.S. Constitution also contains a "Supremacy Clause" that largely allows federal laws to trump state statutes. But it could have prohibited Florida from enacting a Massachusetts-style health care system.

This was the third legislative proposal declared misleading by judges and knocked off the November ballot. Other proposals dealt with the Legislature's power to draw political boundaries and to give property tax breaks to people with second homes and businesses.

The ruling will likely be appealed.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/30/98370/gop-backed-health-care-amendment.html

"Critics and even one of its proponents acknowledged at the time that the amendment likely would not affect the national law because U.S. Constitution also contains a "Supremacy Clause" that largely allows federal laws to trump state statutes."

Hello... Arizona... are you listening?

alland wrote:"Critics and even one of its proponents acknowledged at the time that the amendment likely would not affect the national law because U.S. Constitution also contains a "Supremacy Clause" that largely allows federal laws to trump state statutes."

Hello... Arizona... are you listening?

though the judge was correct in the ruling, the supremacy clause isn't as vague as one thinks. The opponents are going after this bill via the 10th Amendment. Read that amendment.

TexasBlue wrote:
though the judge was correct in the ruling, the supremacy clause isn't as vague as one thinks. The opponents are going after this bill via the 10th Amendment. Read that amendment.

Calibrate me...

alland wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:
though the judge was correct in the ruling, the supremacy clause isn't as vague as one thinks. The opponents are going after this bill via the 10th Amendment. Read that amendment.

Calibrate me...

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That amendment is not open to interpretation. If it's not a power to the federal gov't by the constitution (Article 1, Section 8 ), it's left to the individual state gov'ts.

What that means is, is that the fed can't force a state to do anything (or not do anything) that it isn't empowered to do constitutionally. We also have an article of the constitution that tells what the states can't do.

Article 1, Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

That one is more broad and probably more open to interpretation.

We also have articles that tell the powers of congress, one that tells the limitations of congress, one that lays out the powers of the president and so on.