Erik Wallin, on Thursday's District Court Ruling that the Federal Healthcare Mandate on Individuals is Without Precedent

The question below was asked to the campaign of Republican Party Attorney General candidate Erik Wallin, following Thursday's District Court ruling allowing the challenge to the Federal healthcare law challenge filed by a group of state Attorney Generals to go forward...

In responses to questions from Edward Fitzpatrick of the Projo in April and from Anchor Rising in August, Mr. Wallin has been a consistent supporter of a legal challenge to the new Federal healthcare law on Constitutional grounds. This past Thursday, Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District Court of Florida ruled that "at this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call...The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent" in his decision allowing a challenge to the law by 20 state Attorney Generals to proceed. Does Mr. Wallin have a reaction to this most recent ruling and how it may impact the actions he would consider taking on behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island, with respect to the new Federal healthcare law, if elected as their Attorney General?

Erik Wallin responded by saying...

The recent decision by Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District Court of Florida to allow the challenge against the Federal Health Care Law to go forward is good news to those, like me, who believe that “Congress has no constitutional authority to force the individual mandate and its penalty on Americans who cannot afford or do not wish to have health insurance.” I have chosen to challenge the Obama Health Care Law for two reasons. First it is unconstitutional. Second, like everything else the Federal Government does, I firmly believe Rhode Island, as a state, and our small business and individual citizens will be left covering the massive costs of what will likely become another federal unfunded mandate.

---

Mr. Wallin was also the only candidate who specifically addressed a second question that was asked of all the candidates...

In general, could Mr. Wallin elaborate on what he believes the RI Attorney General's role to be, with respect to protecting the citizens of Rhode Island from having their rights infringed upon by the Federal Government?

Erik Wallin's response to this question was...

I believe it is paramount for the Rhode Island Attorney General to protect the rights of our state and our citizens from overreaching by the Federal Government. Further, when the Federal Government fails to carry out its responsibilities, for example its failure to protect our borders from illegal immigration, then we as a state must be allowed to protect our own citizens. That is exactly what I will do, protect our individual rights and freedoms and those of our State, period.

Robert Rainville, on Thursday's District Court Ruling that the Federal Healthcare Mandate on Individuals is Without Precedent

The question below was asked to the campaign of Independent Attorney General candidate Robert Rainville, following Thursday's District Court ruling allowing the challenge to the Federal healthcare law challenge filed by a group of state Attorney Generals to go forward...

In April, Mr. Rainville responded to an inquiry from Providence Journal columnist Edward Fitzpatrick regarding the new Federal healthcare law by saying "there are possible constitutional challenges. You can make arguments on both sides, so it’s premature to say". In August, Mr. Rainville responded to a follow-up inquiry from Anchor Rising by saying "I believe there is momentum and the legal basis for success in the legal challenges to this Federal Health Care legislation." This past Thursday, Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District Court of Florida ruled in a suit involving the new law by ruling that "at this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call...The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent" in regard to allowing a challenge to the law by 20 state Attorney Generals to proceed. Does this most recent ruling impact Mr. Rainville's position on the actions he might consider taking on behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island, with respect to the new Federal healthcare law, if elected as their Attorney General?

Robert Rainville responded by providing two (on-point) documents, a letter to current Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch, dated the day after the ruling...

Dear Mr. Lynch,

I am writing to formally ask your serious consideration of joining 20 other state Attorneys General in their case to declare the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be un-Constitutional.

I have reviewed this legislation, as I am sure you have as well, and I hope we agree the new taxes it imposes and requirements that mandate citizens to obtain healthcare coverage violates provisions of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution and is unprecedented.

I am sure we can also agree this legislation imposes additional financial burdens on the State of Rhode Island, our small businesses and private citizens which they can ill afford at this time.

Today’s news accounts that the Florida District Court is allowing certain provisions of this legislation to go to trial is good news for all of us who are concerned about these new over-reaching efforts of the federal government that place mandates on individual rights and liberties. Unfortunately, those news accounts revealed that Rhode Island was not among those states participating in the litigation.

While we can all agree we need some level of health care reform in the United States, this Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is seriously flawed and is NOT the answer.

Again, I implore your serious consideration to join with other like-minded state Attorneys General in the litigation being heard in the Florida District Court.

...and a campaign press release dated October 3...

“I am specifically bothered that the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (‘Obamacare’) could be unconstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the power to force individuals to buy a product,” says Independent Attorney General candidate, Robert Rainville.

“We were told the cost of our health insurance was going to go down, not up,” Rainville noted in a prepared statement. Rainville said he recognizes the costs for health care and health care insurance is rising but said, “The most immediate impact of this new mandate is already resulting in higher insurance premiums for businesses and private individuals.”

“As I have reviewed the primary elements of this legislation, I’m outraged the federal government is mandating its citizens to purchase something they may or may not want. This completely violates our sense of freedom in this country,” Rainville stated.

“As Attorney General representing the citizens and taxpayers of Rhode Island, my first obligation and responsibility is to protect them from burdensome and unrealistic rules, regulations and mandates even from the Federal government,” he noted.

“Our goal needs to provide for practical affordable health care insurance solutions to those who want it. I am not convinced the so called ‘Obama Health Care’ mandates are a prudent and practical way to achieve that goal”, he added.

Continue reading "Robert Rainville, on Thursday's District Court Ruling that the Federal Healthcare Mandate on Individuals is Without Precedent"

Peter Kilmartin, on Thursday's District Court Ruling that the Federal Healthcare Mandate on Individuals is Without Precedent

The question below was asked to the campaign of Democratic Party Attorney General candidate Peter Kilmartin, following Thursday's District Court ruling allowing the challenge to the Federal healthcare law challenge filed by a group of state Attorney Generals to go forward...

In August, a spokesman for Mr. Kilmartin's campaign stated, in response to a question from Anchor Rising regarding the new Federal healthcare law, that Mr. Kilmartin was "confident that the Health Care Reform Law is constitutional". This past Thursday, Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District Court of Florida disagreed, stating that "at this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call...The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent" in regard to allowing a challenge to the law by 20 state Attorney Generals to proceed. Does this court ruling impact Mr. Kilmartin's position on the actions he might consider taking on behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island, with respect to the new Federal healthcare law, if elected as their Attorney General?

A spokesman for Peter Kilmartin responded by saying...

Mr. Kilmartin remains staunchly opposed to joining this lawsuit. Much like there was political, and subsequently legal action against Social Security after it was signed into law, the new health care law is facing opposition. With that said, Mr. Kilmartin stands by his initial in-depth legal analysis of the bill -- it is constitutional. Additionally, he would not waste taxpayer dollars on a suit aimed at attacking the new health care law, which keeps insurance companies from taking away health care from kids when they are sick.

Chris Little, on Thursday's District Court Ruling that the Federal Healthcare Mandate on Individuals is Without Precedent

The question below was asked to the campaign of Moderate Party Attorney General candidate Chris Little, following Thursday's District Court ruling allowing the challenge to the Federal healthcare law challenge filed by a group of state Attorney Generals to go forward...

In April, Mr. Little responded to an inquiry from Providence Journal columnist Edward Fitzpatrick regarding the new Federal healthcare law by saying "it seems, in terms of how the Supreme Court has ruled on the exercise of the Commerce Clause, that whether we like it or not, Congress has the power to pass this bill". This past Thursday, Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District Court of Florida disagreed, stating that "at this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call...The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent" in regard to allowing a challenge to the law made by 20 state Attorney Generals to proceed. Does this court ruling impact Mr. Little's position on the actions he might consider taking on behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island, with respect to the new Federal healthcare law, if elected as their Attorney General?

Chris Little responded by saying:

The only court to rule on the merits of the challenge to the mandate contained in the Act has been the federal court in Detroit, which ruled that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to mandate the purchase of health insurance or assess a penalty. In Florida, Judge Vinson carefully noted:

In this order, I have not attempted to determine whether the line between Constitutional and extraconstitutional government has been crossed. That will be decided on the basis of the parties' expected motions for summary judgment, when I will have the benefit of the additional argument and all evidence in the record that may bear on the outstanding issues.

Similarly, the court in Virginia stated that its decision was narrow and merely held that Virginia could bring its case and, like the situation in Florida, that the case should proceed for consideration in light of a more complete record.

Judge Vinson reaffirms what we all know. The mandate in controversy does not take effect until 2014.

There are many immediate and unmet duties of the Rhode Island Attorney General, including those affecting health insurance and Medicaid that should command our first attention, particularly in light of the fact that we have another 4 years truly to assess the impact of this law on Rhode Island.

In short, the opinion of the federal court in Florida does not change my position.

Intro: Federal Judge Rules that the Attorney Generals' Suit Against the Federal Healthcare Law can Continue. What Do the Candidates for RI AG Think About This?

Last Thursday, Judge Roger Vinson of the Federal District Court of Northern Florida ruled that the lawsuit challenging the new Federal healthcare law filed by 20 state Attorney Generals should be allowed to continue. His reasoning is very straightforward. The Federal Government’s power to act is limited by the Constitution...

My review of the statute is not to question or second guess the wisdom, motives, or methods of Congress. I am only charged with deciding if the Act is Constitutional. If it is, the legislation must be upheld --- even if it is a bad law...Conversely, if it is unconstitutional, the legislation must be struck down --- even if it is a good law.

...and since a Federal imposition of a purchase mandate on individuals is an unprecedented extension of Federal power, the question of whether that extension is Constitutional merits consideration...

At this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call...The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent.

Prior to Judge Vinson’s ruling, all of the candidates for Rhode Island Attorney General had previously taken positions on whether a challenge to the healthcare law had any legal merit. I asked each candidate what impact a Federal Judge's decision that “it’s not even close” had on their positions. Responses received so far will be posted on the upcoming half-hours...

Christopher Little on the Virginia Healthcare Lawsuit

As his campaign promised, Moderate Party candidate for Rhode Island Attorney General, Christopher Little, has responded to Anchor Rising's inquiry about last week's Federal District Court ruling allowing a legal challenge to the new Federal healthcare law to proceed. In April, Mr. Little had told the Projo's Edward Fitzpatrick that "it seems, in terms of how the Supreme Court has ruled on the exercise of the Commerce Clause, that whether we like it or not, Congress has the power to pass this bill”. In response to the District Court ruling, Mr. Little said...

My position as to filing suit against the Obama Administration pertaining to the health care legislation is unchanged.

I have stated that I understood the concerns of individuals about the bill, but I did not see how the bill at this time directly implicated the interests of the State of Rhode Island, which, if it did, would require action by the Attorney General.

First, in the Virginia case, the court ruled that the new federal law conflicted with the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act. “The mere existence of the lawfully-enacted statute is sufficient to trigger the duty of the Attorney General of Virginia to defend the (state) law,” the court said.

Second, the court on the merits made it clear it has ruled on a very preliminary issue.

As time passes, and hypotheticals become real, things may change and a defined attack may be both advisable and necessary. But as I consider the issue now, I do not see that the issue sufficiently implicates the interests of this state to warrant involvement.

RI Attorney General Candidates on the Federal Court Ruling that It is Not at all Obvious that the New Healthcare Law is Constitutional

On Monday, Federal District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that a legal challenge to the new Federal Healthcare Law, brought by the Attorney General of the state of Virginia, can proceed (Washington Post coverage is available here). Judge Hudson was quite succinct in explaining at least one Constitutional rationale for his refusal to grant the Federal government's motion to dismiss the state of Virginia's suit...

The Commerce Clause aspect of this debate raises issues of national significance. The position of the parties are widely divergent and at times novel. The guiding precedent is informative, but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far.

In other words, despite what Congressman Pete Stark might believe, an action by the Federal government is not automatically Constitutional simply because the government decides to do it. Federal actions must have an identifiable basis in the Constitution, and it is not self-evident from either the text or the history of Constitutional interpretation that the new healthcare law does.

This past April, the Projo's Edward Fitzpatrick got six of the candidates for Attorney General of Rhode Island on the record regarding their positions on suits challenging the Constitutionality of the healthcare law; four expressed doubt about any serious Constitutional issues being involved. I contacted all six candidates, to get their reactions to this initial Virginia ruling, and specifically asked the four candidates who saw no significant Constitutional difficulties about their positions, in light of a direct statement by a Federal Judge that the healthcare law is an unprecedented stretch of Constitutional authority.

Republican Erik Wallin, who had said in April that he supported "a legal challenge in order to defend our state from further infringement by the federal government", responded to Judge Hudson's ruling by saying...

I am encouraged by this initial victory in the fight against the government's takeover of our U.S. health care system. I concur with U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson's opinion that "never before has the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper clause been extended this far."

Following the passage of President Obama's health care bill, I immediately called upon our current Attorney General, Patrick Lynch, to join with other Attorneys General and challenge it. Not surprisingly, he refused, citing political reasons rather than legal. As Attorney General, I will immediately join with the growing number of Attorneys General, in challenging the health care law, standing up for both our State's rights and each of our individual freedoms.

Independent Robert Rainville, who had told Fitzpatrick that he "wouldn’t rule out a suit", responded that...

I am one of the few candidates for RI Attorney General, who is truly interested in joining in that suit. I am only interested in what's best for Rhode Island families, and not what is best for a particular group or political party. I believe there is momentum and the legal basis for success in the legal challenges to this Federal Health Care legislation. However, I believe in the concept and intent of providing coverage for as many Americans as possible, but not at a higher cost and mandates that this legislation requires.

Since I am seeking to become the first Independent Attorney General Rhode Island has ever had, my decision making is motivated solely on what’s best for Rhode Islanders and not a partisan decision as all the other candidates in this race. Its very clear, the Democrats oppose the suit, and the Republicans support it. They make their decisions on what their respective parties say is best, and I look to what is best for Rhode Islanders in general.

A spokesman for Democrat Peter Kilmartin, quoted in April as saying that suits against the healthcare law "are nothing more than political stunts", said in response to Monday's ruling that...

Peter Kilmartin stands by his statement. The recent decision in Virginia was nothing more than a George W. Bush appointed judge making a procedural decision to allow this case to move forward. Kilmartin remains confident that the Health Care Reform Law is constitutional and will withstand further legal scrutiny.

A spokesman for Moderate candidate Christopher Little, who had told Fitzpatrick that "It seems...that whether we like it or not, Congress has the power to pass this bill", said that Mr. Little would be providing a response to the ruling shortly.

Democrats Joseph Fernandez (“The charge that the law is unconstitutional is a politically motivated ploy”) and Steven Archambault (“The health-care law stands on sound constitutional footing") have not yet responded to my inquiries.

Share      Comment via Facebook

Erik Wallin at the Rhode Island Republican Assembly Endorsement Convention

This past Saturday, the Rhode Island Republican Assembly held its endorsement convention for statewide candidates. Candidates were allowed to make a short statement, then took questions from the audience. As always, RI-RA members asked direct and pointed questions of the candidates.

Erik Wallin spoke to the convention about his campaign for Attorney General in Rhode Island, and received the endorsement made later in the day.

Opening statement:

"It is time to take back the office of Attorney General and Return it to the people, and that is exactly what I am going to do as your next Attorney General. This is an opportunity we've rarely had in Rhode Island to capture an office that affects so many of us, from protecting and standing up for those who have been the victims of violent crimes, to making sure our state's rights themselves are protected..." (Audio: 1 min 23 sec)

"I am also going to crack down on public corruption like no one has before. I rolled out a public corruption bill two weeks ago, with the most severe penalties for those who betray the public trust. This is at the core of what's wrong in Rhode Island..." (Audio: 1 min 43 sec)

"I am a former Air Force officer and JAG. I come to this race with the experience of having been in the office of Attorney General, knowing how it works and, sadly, knowing how it doesn't work..." (Audio: 1 min 16 sec)

Audience Question: What are you going to do about illegal immigration in the State of Rhode Island?

Answer: "I have spoken without any sort of reservation about a couple of issues. One, I firmly believe in e-verify. I believe that e-verify should be rolled out to the private employers as well, besides just individuals doing work for the state or state contractors or the state itself..." (Audio: 1 min 26 sec)

"I also have said that I believe that law enforcement should cooperate with ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's no different than co-operating with the FBI, and I've said that as well when I've been challenged by activists..." (Audio: 1 min 6 sec)

Audience Question: Those under indictment in the North Providence case could still have their town council seats. What would you do about that as AG?

Answer: "Under the HOPE Act [the anti-corruption legislation proposed by Mr. Wallin], anyone who is under indictment for a public corruption crime would be removed from office, not removed permanently, but suspended until such time as they were exonerated, or if convicted, they would be permanently removed from office..." (Audio: 1 min 37 sec)

Audience Question: Do you believe that we are endowed by our creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and if so, will you remain anchored to those principles as you meet the challenges in the times in which we live...

Answer: "So help me God..." (Audio: 0 min 11 sec)

Audience Question: How do you feel about the concept of expungement of criminal records, and what's going on up in the legislature on that subject?

Answer: "I'm against it. Let me tell you something, this is what infuriates me. We have a General Assembly that couldn't be a better friend to criminals...whether it's through the expungement law, where they want to expunge public records of crimes, or whether it's the example of releasing probation violators or cutting their sentences shorter, these things are all in the General Assembly while we have these tremendous other issues, like our financial crisis at hand, and they're worried about criminals..." (Audio: 1 min 4 sec)

"We have one of the most liberal expungement statutes in the country. Unfortunately, they want to make it even more liberal..." (Audio: 1 min 21 sec)

Erik Wallin's Anti-Corruption Plan, Part 2

During yesterday's campaign event where Rhode Island Attorney General candidate Erik Wallin unveiled his anti-corruption legislative package, I had the opportunity to ask the candidate about the importance of the law versus the surrounding political culture when it comes to fighting public corruption...

Erik Wallin: "It is important for the people to understand, and part of the process is educating the people, about the costs of public corruption to them..."

Here is part 2 of the list of specific proposals being offered by Mr. Wallin to deal with the problem of corruption in Rhode Island...

5. EW: "We will also suspend from public office any individual who is in fact under indictment for charges of public corruption..."

   45-4-19. Suspension from office during indictment and loss of office by conviction -- (a) any "Public official" or "public employee" as defined in 36-14-2(4), 36-14-2(9), 36-14-2(10) except for those general officers and general assembly members elected pursuant to Articles VII, VII and IX of the Rhode Island Constitution, may, during any period such official or employee is under indictment for misconduct in such office or employment or for misconduct in any elective or appointive public office, trust or employment at any time held by him, be suspended by the appointing authority, whether or not such appointment was subject to approval in any manner.

   (Extra: I asked Mr. Wallin about the specific application of his proposal to the councilmen in North Providence. His answer was that "under my legislation...they would have been automatically suspended from their elected positions...")

6. EW: "I will establish on day one of my administration a public corruption task force within the office of Attorney General..."

   42-9-2.1 -- Public Corruption Task Force -- (a) There shall be established within the department of attorney general a division of public corruption known as the Public Corruption Task Force the purpose of which shall be to investigate and prosecute all state and local employees and elected officials as defined in 36-14-2(4), 36-14-2(9), 36-14-2(10), 36-14-2(14), and 36-14-2(1) in conjunction with the Office of Investigations as defined in 42-9-8.1, and/or any federal, state, or municipal law enforcement agency of matters determined by the attorney general to potentially be a violation of 11-7.1 (public corruption) and 11-7 (bribery).

   (b) Composition -- the Public Corruption Task Force shall be comprised of, but not limited to, the following:
   (1) three (3) prosecutors each with greater than seven (7) years prosecutorial experience;
   (2) one (1) forensic auditor;
   (3) any other department of attorney general employee determined to be necessary for the purpose of the Public Corruption Task Force, including, but not limited to, the Office of Investigations as defined in 42-9-8.1.

7. EW: Cites the situation in Central Falls and current Attorney General Patrick Lynch as an example of the need for a new special prosecutor law in RI...

   ...and lays out a new process for the appointment of a special prosecutor, when the AGs office is conflicted.

   42-9.2-3. Appointment of a Special Prosecutor. -- If an occasion arises with respect to the conduct or alleged conduct of any person that would call for an investigation and/or prosecution by the Attorney General, and the Attorney General believes that he or she, or anyone in the Attorney General's department, has an actual or perceived conflict of interest because of an actual or perceived relationship, past or present, with such person, or with any person or entity associated with such person, the Attorney General may recuse himself by written notice to the Panel as defined in 42-9.2-4. Contemporaneous with the Attorney General's written notification to the Panel, the Attorney General shall by written notice direct the Panel as defined in 42-9.2-4 to appoint a Special Prosecutor to act in the place and stead of the Attorney General in the investigation and/or prosecution of such person.

Erik Wallin's Anti-Corruption Plan, Part 1

Republican Attorney General candidate Erik Wallin has definitely (and thankfully) not bought into the "you have pass a bill to find out what's in a bill" attitude towards lawmaking currently en vogue in the United States Congress. On Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Wallin unveiled the specific changes to the law he intends to introduce, to fight against public corruption, if he is elected as Rhode Island's Attorney General. The entire legislative package is available from his campaign website.

Immediately below, I have posted several key excerpts, along with audio of Mr. Wallin's explanation of how they will change the status-quo...

1. Erik Wallin: "Individuals who engage in bribery will face the toughest penalties in this country..."

   11-7.1-2 Public Bribery -- (a) Every person who shall corruptly give or offer to any public servant or candidate, or any public servant or candidate who shall agree to accept, or attempt to obtain from any person, for himself or herself or any other person any gift or valuable consideration, as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any public act shall be guilty of bribery and shall be imprisoned not less than fifteen (15) years nor more than twenty (20) years, with no term of imprisonment provided for under this section to be suspended, and shall be fined not more than Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) or three times the amount of the consideration, whichever is greater.

2. EW: "Anyone who is convicted of a public corruption offense will lose their pension..."

   11-41-31 Pension revocation. -- (a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who is convicted or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to any offense, and the offense is related to his or her public office of employment pursuant to § 36-10.12, the judge, as part of any sentence imposed, may shall revoke or reduce any retirement or any benefit or payment to which the public official or public employee is otherwise entitled under titles 36, 16, 45, and 8, under chapter 30 of title 28, under chapter 43 of title 31 or under chapter 28 of title 42.

3. EW: "We have removed the statute of limitations for those who engage in public corruption..."

   12-12-17 Statute of limitations. -- (a) There shall be no statute of limitations for the following offenses: treason against the state, any homicide, arson, first degree arson, second degree arson, third degree arson, burglary, counterfeiting, forgery, robbery, rape, first degree sexual assault, first degree child molestation sexual assault, second degree child molestation sexual assault, bigamy, any public corruption offense under chapter 7.1 of title 11, manufacturing, selling, distribution or possession with intent to manufacture, sell or distribute a controlled substance under the Uniform Controlled Substance Act, chapter 28 of title 21, or any other offense for which the maximum penalty provided is life imprisonment.

4. EW: "We will have a public corruption profiteering penalty..."

   11-7.1-6 Civil liability for violations of the public trust and public corruption profiteering penalty -- (a) Whenever a person has engaged in conduct prohibited by this chapter, or otherwise breached a fiduciary duty to an entity that holds, appropriates, or receives public funds, there shall accrue to the entity a civil action to recover three times the amount of the sum involved in the alleged violation. This cause of action shall accrue independent of any criminal prosecution, and recovery shall be had where it appears, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the public trust has been violated.

Coming in Part 2: A permanent anti-corruption task force and provision for a special prosecutor...

Patrick Lynch Not Interested in Challenging the Federal Government's Power to Impose a Purchase Mandate on Individuals

According to Steve Peoples of the Projo's 7-to-7 newsblog, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch (to no one's surprise, really) is not interested in joining a potential lawsuit by the states challenging the Federal government's power to require that individuals purchase something...

"I don't like a lot of the decisions that the legislature makes every day. Do I go up and sue them? And do you have the basis to do so, more to the point?" Lynch said in a late-morning interview, characterizing the looming lawsuits in a dozen states as "political posturing....But at the outset, moments after the vote, when they're crying and putting up [lawsuit threats] on Facebook in Texas first, there's a procedure that we go through as attorneys general when something is more substantive, and this seems to be a partisan driven mechanism," said Lynch, a Democratic candidate for governor.

"To me it's a moment that should be celebrated," he said of Sunday's health-care vote.

Will Patrick Lynch be Getting a Phone Call Tonight...

...and do we have a new issue in both the Rhode Island Attorney General's and the Governor's races, based on this facebook post from the Attorney General of Texas (h/t NRO)...

Texas attorney general Greg Abbott Facebooks: "I am organizing a conference call tonight for AGs across the country. We will discuss our litigation strategy about the healthcare bill. I will update you on Facebook after the conference call."

Rhode Island Voter Coalition, Burrillville, Video Part 2

Additional video from the Rhode Island Voter Coalition Burrillville "meet the candidates" attorney general Q&A may be found in the extended entry.

Continue reading "Rhode Island Voter Coalition, Burrillville, Video Part 2"