JUDICIARY: Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform - The Next National Diffusion Of Corporate Parental Rights

This is a red carpet roll out of the pharmaceutical industry taking over the cannabis industry through Medicaid expansions.

I keep hearing the new fraud scheme lingo of reparations buzzwords, "black & brown" which automatically demonstrates that this is soft disclosure of more Public Private Partnerships of foreign corporations implementing new socioeconomic programs to take over the entire justice system, under corporate parental rights with their Social Impact Bonds for complete asset forfeiture for their civil debt.

Behold! Corporate Parental Rights has re-engineered itself in the form of  the STATES Act.

How do I know this is another push for privatization of the U.S.?

Well, it all started in child welfare because no one cares and I am the original source.

This is how you start to lay the groundwork to amend the U.S. Constitution, but hey, what do I know?

I know we are watching a #coloredrevolution because I hear them talking about the business industries licensing, profit margins and taxes as commerce.

The STATES Act will expose flawed marijuana legacy

Introduced in Senate (06/07/2018)

115th CONGRESS 2d Session

S. 302

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other purposes.

---

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 7, 2018

Ms. Warren (for herself, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Paul, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Booker, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Bennet) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for a new rule regarding the application of the Act to marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act” or the “STATES Act” .

SEC. 2. RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA.

(a) In General.—Part G of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“RULE REGARDING APPLICATION TO MARIHUANA

“Sec. 710. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this title as applied to marihuana, other than the provisions described in subsection (c) and other than as provided in subsection (d), shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with State law relating to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.

“(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this title related to marihuana, other than the provisions described in subsection (c) and other than as provided in subsection (d), shall not apply to any person acting in compliance with the law of a Federally recognized Indian tribe within its jurisdiction in Indian Country, as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, related to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana so long as such jurisdiction is located within a state that permits, respectively, manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of marihuana.

“(c) The provisions described in this subsection are—

“(1) section 401(a)(1), with respect to a violation of section 409 or 418;

“(2) section 409;

“(3) section 417; and

“(4) section 418.

“(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any person who—

“(1) violates the Controlled Substances Act with respect to any other controlled substance;

“(2) notwithstanding compliance with State or tribal law, knowingly or intentionally manufactures, produces, possesses, distributes, dispenses, administers, or delivers any other marihuana in violation of the laws of the State or tribe in which such manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery occurs; or

“(3) employs or hires any person under 18 years of age to manufacture, produce, distribute, dispense, administer, or deliver marihuana.”.

(b) Definition Of Marihuana.—Section 102(16) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended—

(1) by striking “or the sterilized” and inserting “the sterilized”; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting “, or industrial hemp (as defined in section 7606(b) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 5940(b))).”.

SEC. 3. TRANSPORTATION SAFETY OFFENSES.

Section 409 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 849) is amended—

(1) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph (1)—

(A) by striking “A person” and inserting “Except as provided in subsection (d), a person”; and

(B) by striking “subsection (b)” and inserting “subsection (c)”;

(2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph (1)—

(A) by striking “A person” and inserting “Except as provided in subsection (d), a person”; and

(B) by striking “subsection (a)” and inserting “subsection (b)”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(d) Exception.—Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any person who possesses, or possesses with intent to distribute marihuana in compliance with section 710.”.

SEC. 4. DISTRIBUTION TO PERSONS UNDER AGE 21.

Section 418 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 859) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), in the first sentence, by inserting “and subsection (c) of this section” after “section 419”;

(2) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by inserting “and subsection(c) of this section” after “section 419”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to any person at least 18 years of age who distributes medicinal marihuana to a person under 21 years of age in compliance with section 710.”.

SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) In General.—Conduct in compliance with this Act and the amendments made by this Act—

(1) shall not be unlawful;

(2) shall not constitute trafficking in a controlled substance under section 401 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841) or any other provision of law; and

(3) shall not constitute the basis for forfeiture of property under section 511 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 881) or section 981 of title 18, United States Code.

(b) Proceeds.—The proceeds from any transaction in compliance with this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not be deemed to be the proceeds of an unlawful transaction under section 1956 or 1957 of title 18, United States Code, or any other provision of law.

If you go after the public corruption, you would not have injustice.

How come House Judiciary will not hold any hearings on public corruption?

Well, it would be difficult to hold hearings when you are the subject of the hearings.

Awkward!

Her Flatulent  Boviness, Sheila Jackson Lee, had to raise the question about the commercial opportunities for child welfare programs.

Then, they discussed all the problems with Florida, drug testing and barriers with banks when this popped up.

DOJ: The Power Of Child Welfare Propaganda & Urine - Another $57 Million Medicaid Fraud In Child Welfare Op Busted

No one talked about foreign corporations investing fraud schemes in the U.S. marijuana industry but they are surely talking about investment capitol, asset management and targeted populations, code for Social Impact Bonds.

Hakeem Jeffries got real and took it all the way back as a residual of the peculiar institution.

Lieu raised how no one is talking about human trafficking, public corruption or election fraud, after foster care popped up in discussions.

-----------------------------------------------

Witnesses

Marilyn Mosby Esq. 
State's Attorney for Baltimore City, Baltimore, MD

• Witness Statement
• Truth in Testimony Disclosure Form
• Witness Biography

Dr. G. Malik Burnett MD, MBA, MPH 
COO, Tribe Companies, LLC, Washington, DC

• Witness Statement
• Truth in Testimony Disclosure Form
• Witness Biography

Mr. Neal Levine 
Chief Executive Officer, Cannabis Trade Federation, Denver, CO

• Witness Statement
• Truth in Testimony Disclosure Form
• Witness Biography

Dr. David L. Nathan MD, DFAPA 
Doctors for Cannabis Regulation, Princeton, NJ

• Witness Statement
• Truth in Testimony Disclosure Form
• Witness Biography

Documents

• Notice of Hearing
• Witness List

116th Congress

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: VAWA Reauthorization Hearing - Jolly Jerry Forgets Truth In Testimony, ICWA, TPR & Its Legacy - My Colored Commentary

U.S. Representative Cedric Richmond is the first elected official to state "Termination of Parental Rights" into the congressional record of Judiciary.

A quick overview on the history of VAWA.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which officially expired on September 30, 2018, but was briefly extended in continuing resolutions before expiring in December 2018. The hearing will examine the broad range of issues related to the harms inflicted upon women, men, and children in America through domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, dating violence, and stalking, as well as Congress’ role in addressing these issues. The hearing will also explore the potentially devastating effect of not reauthorizing VAWA, and the tremendous impact a prolonged lack of funding could have on millions of survivors across the country.

Ratcliffe spoke in defense of Faith Based organizations being left out of the reauthorization of VAWA.  He raised the political partisanship in passing the extension.

No mention of CPS, foster care or adoption, but Julie Beck spoke about the Lesbian Powers of the LBQRSTUV Community in gender identity laws without broaching anything DNA database related.

She spoke about child sexual abuse.

Unfortunately, there was no one to properly expound upon the gender identity laws under chattel law, more intuitively known in the legal world as Ecclesiastical Law, which is being pushed through Public Private Partnerships in the rebranding of parental rights and the children's trust funds.

Fathers have been victims of VAWA in the layers of fraudulent billing in child support and child welfare programs, where there have been instances where a man identified as an aggressor strictly for the purposes of a mother obtaining services.

Yes, you have to check the box in order to access help.

Yes, the VAWA programs are crap, riddled with fraud, which brings a judicial determination to turn on the federal funding spigot for Targeted Case Management, Medicaid fraud.

Ramona Gonzales did speak of children being removed, without saying foster care, if there is a domestic violence situation which is why the national data of child abuse and neglect are corrupt.

Sarah Deer spoke of Native Tribes inability of prosecuting non tribal members or even crimes of child abuse and against women.

Odd how she never mentioned the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) or its history of how the tribal constitutions developed, who was behind it, and the tribal exile based upon the blood quantum rule, as opposed to the one-drop rule.

It is time to address, in formal hearings, ICWA and all the covert "military" operations, including drug, child trafficking and money laundering on the reservations.

Gohmert got raw by asking the LBQRSTUV Lesbian why women must have "women only spaces" by loosely comparing it to "blacks only spaces". She responded by saying, "if women could experience these women only spaces, they will see how wonderful it is."  I would suggest she spend time in a women's only prison or go help mothers who have had their children legally kidnapped get them back.

Gohmert just brought up female genital mutilation as a violence against women, carefully guiding to the fact that it happens to girls, not women.

Richmond spoke on Termination of Parental Rights, as one of his first cases out of law school. No one has ever spoken upon this before.  He also mentioned CASA.  He made history.

Lieu spoke upon lack of resources for domestic violence survivors, homelessness, poverty, etc.  On a side note, your children can and will be removed, placed in foster care, under VAWA if you hail from "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

How to stop discrimination and increase to access to domestic violence services for LBQRSTUV individuals: report fraud!

Yes, many Faith Based private contractors will not only turn their noses up at a LBQRSTUV individual seeking help, they will advocate termination of parental rights if there is a child involved.  Take for instance any christian child placing agency, perhaps, I shall use Bethany Christian Services, which is notorious for ignoring its foster children who are gay and ask for help from being raped.

Perhaps, we can go as far back as St. Vincent Sarah Fisher Residential Institution who never wanted to do anything when it came to little boys being raped by bigger boys, or men, because, homosexuality is frowned upon in self reporting to DHHS, which is why the typical form of help is to drug the pain away with Medicaid cost reimbursed services and  testing second generation antipsychotropic human subject lab rats for corporate sponsorship.

Heck, Faith Based child placing agencies will not even allow LBQRSTUV to adopt.

Grand Rapids does not allow LBQRSTUV youth into its homeless shelters, but I digress.

VAWA has turned into a Social Impact Bond experimental social services program and not a reparative response to the residuals of the peculiar institution, its original intent, a step to end human trafficking of women.

It seems Jolly Jerry of Judiciary forgot the Truth in Testimony, the bios, and legacy of VAWA, but then again, he was probably more focused on his impeachment proceedings because not everyone is allowed due process of the law, right?

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House, Senate Democratic Leaders Push Trump Administration for Answers on Affirmative Action

Amid national conversation on race and white supremacy, new efforts from the Trump Administration to reexamine the values of racial diversity on campus are deeply troubling

Democrats: “This is the latest effort by [Trump]Administration to step away from enforcing the protections provided under the Civil Rights Act and instead promote policies that undermine civil rights protections”

Congressman John Conyers  (D-MI), ranking member of the House Committee on Judiciary, Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA), ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce,, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, sent a letter, below, to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos about a recent memo that showed intent of the Departments of Justice (DOJ)  and Education (ED) to reexamine the process by which the federal government ensures racial diversity on college campuses.

“Recently, an internal hiring posting from DOJ citing ‘investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions’ caused public concerns as to whether DOJ and ED are launching a new effort to reexamine the values of racial diversity on campus,” the Members wrote. “This is the latest effort by this Administration to step away from enforcing the protections provided under the Civil Rights Act and instead promote policies that undermine civil rights protections and your Departments’ Civil Rights Offices. The Supreme Court has made it clear that racial diversity is a compelling state interest and that it is in our national interest that talented students from a variety of backgrounds get a close look and a fair chance at overcoming obstacles to higher education.” 

The Members also highlighted that this memo follows a disturbing pattern of the Trump Administration’s hostile view of the federal government’s role in protecting civil rights.

“This action is especially suspect given this Administration’s lack of attention to civil rights issues in our education system thus far,” the letter continues. “For example, neither DOJ nor ED have publically addressed the spate of racially charged incidents on college campuses nor the rise in white supremacist recruiting efforts and incidents on college campuses which the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes as unprecedented.   Such incidents include the stabbing of an African American student commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army by a fan of white supremacist websites, or bananas hanging from nooses labeled ‘Harambe bait.’”

House, Senate Democratic Leaders Letter To Trump Administration for Answers on Affirmative Action 8-21-2017... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS: Ahead Of Sessions' Testimony, House Judiciary Dems Call On Attorney General To Clarify His Role In Ongoing Russia Investigation

Washington D.C. -  Ahead of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ appearance before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence this week, House Judiciary Committee Democrats, led by Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), today sent a letter, below, to Attorney General Jeff Sessions requesting information on the charges made by former FBI Director James Comey last week. This is the ninth letter sent to the Department of Justice by House Judiciary Democrats related to these matters. To date, there has been no response.

In their letter, the Members wrote, “As Members of the House Judiciary Committee, we write to ask that you provide us with information relating to your knowledge concerning recent charges by Mr. Comey regarding improper conduct by the President; the veracity of your disclosure regarding meetings with Russian officials; and your compliance with the terms of your recusal.  We ask these questions to fulfill our responsibility to protect the integrity of the Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General, whether or not you are recused from an ongoing investigation.  If necessary, we are willing to receive any portion of your response in a classified setting.”

Today’s letter was signed by every Democratic member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, including: Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Karen Bass (D-CA), Cedric Richmond (D-LA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), David Cicilline (D-RI), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL). 

Background:

The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It also has jurisdiction over the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have long called on Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to join them in their oversight efforts.

On March 2^nd, all House Judiciary Committee Democrats sent a letter to former Federal Bureau of Investigations Director James Comey and former U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Channing D. Phillips, calling for an immediate criminal investigation into U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ statements before Congress in regards to his communications with Russian officials.

On March 10th, every Democrat on the Committee called on Chairman Goodlatte to “get moving on Trump oversight” by holding formal committee hearings on Russia’s interference with the election and related matters. 

On March 31^st, Reps. John Conyers, Jr., Hakeem Jeffries and Ted Lieu, called for Sessions to clarify his involvement with the Russia investigation, after his statements on leaks of classified information.

On May 11^th, all seventeen Democrats on the House Committee on the Judiciary sent a letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte, urging him to conduct immediate hearings into the firing of James Comey. 

On May 12^th, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., and Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raising “grave concerns” about Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ direct participation in President Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey despite the fact that he previously recused himself from any actions involving the investigations of the Trump and Clinton presidential campaigns.

On May 16^th, all 33 Democratic Members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on the Judiciary, sent a detailed letter to their respective Republican Chairmen outlining their demand for an immediate investigation into the actions of President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and top White House aides.

On May 24^th, Conyers called on House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to investigate Sessions.

U.S. House Judiciary Democrats Call On Attorney General Jeff Sessions To Clarify His Role In Ongoing To Rus... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Judiciary GOP Skip Out On Trump-Russia Resolution Debate; Vote To Kill Two Dem Requests For Information From WH & DOJ

Majority Once Again, Refuses Dem Attempts to Conduct Basic Oversight

Majority Once Again, Refuses Dem Attempts to Conduct Basic Oversight

Washington, DC – Today, House Judiciary Committee Republicans voted to kill H. Res. 184, below, a resolution of inquiry introduced by Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Ted Lieu (D-CA), that would have required the White House and Department of Justice to release information about contacts between Russian officials and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, among other Trump Administration figures. Republicans on the committee also voted down H. Res. 203, (second below) introduced by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), that would have required the White House and Justice Department to provide information, if any, on Trump’s unsubstantiated allegation that President Obama “wiretapped” him.  

House Judiciary Republicans Appear Uninterested in Oversight: During the markup, Republicans refused to engage in debate on the resolutions.  The Majority’s side of the room was largely empty.  Chairman Goodlatte repeatedly referred to the resolutions as a “waste of the committee’s time.”  Both resolutions failed on party line votes.

Judiciary Republicans were mostly absent from today’s debate.

House Judiciary Republicans Reject Amendment to get Information on Nunes’ Visit to the White House:  During the markup, Vice Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) offered an amendment to H. Res. 203 to request information related to Chairman Devin Nunes’ secretive visit to the White House.  On March 23, 2017, Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence told reporters that, “on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.”  Chairman Nunes then traveled back to the White House to share his findings with President Donald Trump.  He still has not shared those findings with his colleagues on the Committee.  Republicans voted down this amendment on a party line vote.

House Judiciary Republicans Limit Debate on Trump’s Lies, Nunes’ Behavior, and Sessions’ False Testimony:  Several times during the markup, Chairman Goodlatte threatened to “take down” the statements of Members attempting to describe the factual record—in effect, forcing them to withdraw their words from the record or lose their speaking privileges for the day.  House Rules prohibit impugning the character or motives of the President—but it is true, as Ranking Members Conyers stated, that “President Trump has a long and colorful history of saying things that are simply untrue.”

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Judiciary Committee Members Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Ted Lieu, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Member Rep. Mike Quigley, today released the following statement after the markup:

“Once again, Republicans have proven that they’d rather become complicit with scandals than engage in proper oversight of the Trump Administration. Today, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee took their second and third votes to block Democratic efforts to obtain basic information about interactions between Trump’s inner circle and Putin’s Russia. Republicans can no longer sit idly by and pretend that none of these matters of vital national security importance are real. The American people expect more and the future of our democracy requires it.”

Background

House Judiciary Committee Democrats have long been calling for House Judiciary Republicans to provide proper oversight over Trump and his Administration. On March 10^th, every Democratic member of the Committee called on Chairman Goodlatte to “get moving on Trump oversight.”

Despite Judiciary Republicans’ attempts to block Democratic efforts, these resolutions of inquiry should be the proper next step in the Committee’s oversight of the Trump Administration. They follow two letters. (third below) to Chairman Bob Goodlatte—both signed by every Democratic member of the Committee—requesting hearings about federal conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions that may apply to the President.  Democrats have also sent several letters to Speaker Paul Ryan, the Department of Justice and the White House requesting this and related information concerning Trump’s ties to Russia. 

Just a few weeks ago, House Judiciary Republicans blocked Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) resolution of inquiry from reaching the House floor.  The Nadler resolution would have provided Congress with information relevant to President Trump’s conflicts of interest, his potential violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, and ties between his advisors and the Russian regime.  During that markup, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA) indicated that the Nadler resolution was unnecessary because the Majority was drafting a bipartisan letter to Attorney General Sessions.  To date, no such letter has been sent.

H.R. 184 Inquiry Requesting President and Attorney General To Turn Over Documents To Congress on Russian Co... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Letter to House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte on Congressional Oversight of DOJ Trump-Russia Investigation... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

House Ranking Members to Speaker Ryan On President Trump Violating Emolument Clause 1-12-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS, SLAUGHTER, CROWLEY, NADLER & JEFFRIES: GOP Bill To Single Out New Yorkers Represents Worst of Washington

Members Release Legal Analysis Pointing to Provision’s Unconstitutionality

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Rules Committee Ranking Member Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-NY), and House Judiciary Committee Members Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) released a legal analysis, below, prepared by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff demonstrating the unconstitutionality of the ongoing Republican plans to single out New York State for sharing Medicaid costs with its counties. The Members  released the following joint statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“House Republicans’ Trumpcare bill is nothing more than a tax cut for the wealthy masquerading as a 'healthcare bill.' If this bill were to become law, 24 million Americans would lose their insurance coverage, and seniors would face skyrocketing premiums. Even worse, to appease the extreme conservatives of the House Republican Freedom Caucus, the newly adopted manager’s amendment includes provisions eliminating Essential Health Benefits requirements such as maternity care, prescription drug and emergency coverage – essentially erasing protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions.

“In a desperate attempt to pass this unconscionable bill, Speaker Ryan and the House Republican leadership have offered to include the Faso-Collins amendment in order to gain the support of vulnerable New York Republican members. This blatant vote buying represents the worst side of Washington politics. In fact, many Republican Attorneys General called a similar provision in 2009 ‘constitutionally flawed’ and ‘violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just.’  

“By singling out New York State – even though 15 other states have similar systems for sharing Medicaid costs -- and forcing New York to give up its core sovereign power to decide how it will raise funds for its own share of Medicaid, this measure is unconstitutional. This is why we believe New York State would be well within its rights to challenge the provision in court, as Governor Cuomo has suggested.

“The irony of this buyout is that the payment supposedly being delivered in exchange for votes is the legislative equivalent of a check on a closed bank account. It will never deliver the promised benefit. 

“Finally, it is also important to note that House Republican Leadership’s reckless attempt to cram Trumpcare through Congress is that according to the most recent CBO report, the Faso-Collins amendment has no or only incidental impact on the federal budget.  It should therefore be struck under reconciliation rules if this bill even reaches the Senate.” 

Background

For the last 51 years, New York State has chosen to fund a portion of its share of the Medicaid Program by using funds from county property taxes.  Fifteen other states structure Medicaid funding through a similar legally authorized system.

The Faso-Collins amendment, being incorporated into the Manager’s amendment to H.R. 1628, the “American Healthcare Act of 2017,”  specifies that any State that had an allotment of Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funds that was more than 6 times the national average, and that requires subdivisions with populations of less than 5,000,000 to contribute toward Medicaid costs, shall have its reimbursement reduced by the amount of contributions by such subdivisions. This effectively limits the application to New York State, and carves out New York City. Under the amendment, New York State is at risk of losing $2.3 billion of its $32 billion in Federal Medicaid funds.

The amendment would implicate Constitutional limits on the Federal Spending Power, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and the Tenth Amendment (reserving all undelegated powers to the States) because it is not related to a legitimate Federal interest; no rational Federal purpose has been proffered for the provision which singles out New York for discrimination; and it severely intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, such as structuring taxing and spending authorities.  Under a series of Supreme Court cases these provisions would exceed Congress’s spending authority, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, and violate Tenth Amendment principles. 

House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff Legal Analysis of Republican Plans To Target New York State Medi... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©