When Idaho Governor C.L. â€œButchâ€ Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the â€œnationalâ€ news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional â€œscholarâ€ David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the â€œsupremacy clauseâ€ of the United States Constitution.
In his words, â€œThat language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesnâ€™t matter what a state legislature says on this.â€ Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the â€œsupremacy clauseâ€ may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.
Engstromâ€™s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law â€œscholars,â€ but he is far from correct, and Idaho and the thirty seven other States considering similar legislation have a strong case based on the original intent of the powers of the federal government vis-Ã -vis the States.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!