Thank you to Ron Ramsey for pushing harder on the Nebraska-Nelson-Bribe.  When Senator Alexander recognizes the raw deal that was the Nebraska kickback, then heck, you know we’ve really got a problem!

Can AG Cooper come up with anything?  Any legal strategy?   I honestly don’t know.  How hard does he want to look? What are the pressures? His view of constitutionality is every bit as subject to personal interpretation as are the opinions of the highest judicial thinkers in the land.  We know that different ideological and interpretive camps exist.

For instance, while many of us argued the crack tax was unconstitutional, Attorney General Cooper argued that it met constitutional muster. The Tennessee Supreme Court ended up ruling that it was unconstitutional.

My tendency would be to assume that Cooper’s opinions side on those of the state, i.e. government, rather than the individual.

However, we’ve also seen his opinions that the 9th and 10th amendments are pretty much just window dressing for big federal government, so does he tend more towards federal and less towards state?  Is he resigned to the feds can do what they want to kind of opinion?   I don’t know.  I don’t know enough about his philosophy to be able to make a prediction.

I do know that this isn’t a futile exercise.  Numerous other states realize the inherent unfairness of exempting one state for no reason, or as Ramsey says, for no “rational” reason.  Other states are moving forward with legal work.

I’d love to see some of the legal scholars here in Tennessee write some op-eds on the subject.  I think we’re moving into areas that have not received a lot of attention because the U.S. economy has rolled for decades.  But I think we’ve reached the tipping point.  When the cash dries up, philosophies often change.

If you’ll recall, our man Fred Thompson was raising the issue of federalism and states rights during the Presidential campaign. Unfortunately, his mention came across to the average Joe  as looking like an excuse for avoiding the marriage issue instead of a forecasting of the financial and legal issues now at stake or a discussion of mandates.

I do know this, Senator Nelson and others are feeling the heat of judicial challenges.  They’re asking for relief. I say turn up the heat!  And keep turning it up.

Here’s Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey’s presser:

The Honorable Robert E. Cooper, Jr.
Attorney General and Reporter
State of Tennessee
425 Fifth Avenue, North
Second Floor
Nashville, Tennessee  37243

Dear General Cooper:

As you are aware, on December 24^th the United States Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590).  As publicly acknowledged by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the critical sixtieth vote in favor of passage was cast by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson in exchange for inclusion of a provision within H.R. 3590 that requires the federal government to hold the State of Nebraska harmless from increased costs arising from the proposed Medicaid expansion.  H.R. 3590 does not require the federal government to pick-up the full cost of the proposed expansion of Medicaid in any other state.  The so-called “Nebraska Deal” clearly grants special benefits to a single state purely for the purpose of political expediency.  Taxpayers in all other states will be required to annually pay millions of dollars to offset increased Medicaid costs.  In defending the “Nebraska Deal,” no one has suggested any rational basis for favoring Nebraska taxpayers over taxpayers in Tennessee or any other state.

Please share your expertise and insights with regard to the following question:

• • Does any provision within the United States Constitution or other federal law provide a legal basis by which the State of Tennessee and other states could seek judicial intervention to block implementation of H.R. 3590 or, alternatively, to ensure that the “Nebraska Deal” is extended to the other states?

I have read your public comments wishing to defer the issue until legislation is finalized but the General Assembly must be proactive in dealing with what Governor Bredesen has called “the mother of all unfunded mandates.”  I join Governor Bredesen in his outrage at the $1.2 billion price tag of this legislation in a year when we are preparing to cut up to $1.5 billion from the state budget.

While it is admirable that the Governor has contacted our federal officials on this issue, it is the duty of the state Attorney General to defend Tennessee against unconstitutional dictates from the federal government.  All I ask is that you share your expertise and insights regarding the above question.  We must begin to prepare for the harsh impact of either the House or Senate bill on Tennesseans.  As Governor Bredesen has not ruled out asking that Tennessee join other states in challenging the proposed legislation, there is no reason to wait.

A bipartisan group of state elected officials have publicly stated that the “Nebraska Deal” is bad policy, excessive and are concerned about its implementation.  It is time for the Attorney General’s office to offer preliminary legal options to the legislature as to how we may best protect Tennessee citizens from this unfair and quite possibly unconstitutional federal action.

If there are questions or if additional information is required, then please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff.

I look forward to discussing these matters with you in the near future.