Bolling asks for AG opinion on Obamacare

LTG Bill Bolling requested an opinion of AG Bill Mims "on the constitutionality of the federal healthcare legislation passed by the United States Senate in December." and more to the point, Bolling asked whether:

the special treatment given to certain states in the Senate compromise that disadvantaged Virginia and other states, as well as the extent to which the legislation violates limitations imposed on federal actions by the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, did Sen. Ben Nelson's deal with Harry Reid pass the constitutional smell test?

The answer shouldn't really be a surprise, as Mims has already made it clear he thinks it doesn't. But in more formal language, Mims responded, in part, as follows:

“In my view, carving out an exception for a specific state, unrelated to any policy objective other than to secure the vote of a particular senator, would exceed the bounds of what Congress may do under the Spending Clause,” wrote Mims. “Where the taxing and spending is intended to effectuate a benefit for a single state, solely to garner the vote of a particular senator from that state rather than for the general welfare, the spending at issue is unconstitutional. To conclude otherwise, would mean that the General Welfare Clause is meaningless.”

While I have enormous sympathy for this reading, it does open the flood gates to a range of litigation not only on the health insurance bill, but just about every other piece of legislation Congress (and even the General Assembly) considers.

Without corrupt bargains, how would anything get done?