I saw this legislation was introduced in the Louisiana State Senate by Senator Crowe. Generally, it states:
I have seen some legislation in state governments about the 10th amendment, however anything that has actually passed has seemed to be something that is non-binding.
Is this type of thing something that people would expect other states to follow on, or have other states already introduced legislation of this sort?
I am not sure I see it really going anywhere, outside of a few arguments in there that could be problematic for the Federal Government, but I am not sure it would sink anything entirely.
What do you all think?
A. Congress is attempting to enact proposed legislation which, if passed, would require Louisiana to expand the income limits for the medicaid program and would, thereby, negatively impact the state general fund.
B. The U.S. Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 521 U.S. 898, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997), has declared that states cannot be required by the federal government to provide services which are not compensated for by the federal government.
C. Louisiana law prohibits any public funds made available to any institution, board, commission, department, agency, official, or employee of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, whether such funds are made available by the U.S. government, to pay for elective abortions, except in certain limited cases.
D. Proposed federal mandates would require Louisiana taxpayers to pay for or subsidize all elective abortions and would be in conflict with state law.
E. To coerce individuals to enter into contracts with private companies, particularly health insurers, would go beyond the authority of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, be unconstitutional.
F. To require the citizens of Louisiana to pay for certain federally mandated services while exempting the taxpayers of certain other states is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
G. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "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." Issues regarding health care and health insurance were never delegated to the federal government by the states and, thus, are reserved to the states.
I have seen some legislation in state governments about the 10th amendment, however anything that has actually passed has seemed to be something that is non-binding.
Is this type of thing something that people would expect other states to follow on, or have other states already introduced legislation of this sort?
I am not sure I see it really going anywhere, outside of a few arguments in there that could be problematic for the Federal Government, but I am not sure it would sink anything entirely.
What do you all think?