According to this, those ' concessions ' that Nelson demanded to get him to vote for the Health Care bill would be illegal and going directly against the Constitution because the ' concessions ' only apply to the people of the state of Nebraska.

No according to that it would be legal,

Besides, upon sinature from both the house and Senate, and then the President, A bill becomes law!

Get over it.

If the Senate gets 60 votes Mon at 1am, Obama will make it law Christmas eve!

Get over it???

WTF dude?

How about you get over yourself?? You keep dancing and singing like this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'll just remain skeptical until the government PROVES it can handle it.

I saw this on another site that I am a part of. The interpretation was ( on that site ) that passage would indicate that Nelson's " deal " for his vote would be illegal because it didn't apply to all the states.

If it WAS illegal, then the signature of the President wouldn't be worth a spit in the ocean since the " Law " would immediately be challenged and ruled unconstitutional.

Did ya happen to notice that the thread title was formed as a question??? Or were you too busy singing from the rooftops???

I formed it as a question because I don't know enough of the law to be able to interpret it.

That's not the final bill in the senate. The house has one and if the senate passes this one then both bills will be merged and need to be voted on again.

JustAGuy2112,
Let me guess.
You saw that on a blog.

I'm no lawyer either, but almost every politician in Wash is.
At least it seems they are.
If it were illegal wouldn't you think that at least every Republican in the Senate would be screaming by now?

I read it, and it appears to me that it doesn't pertain, but if it does it says its legal.

The law you posted, I believe has to do with extradition and interstate crime. Stating that if one state prosecutes or charges someone of a crime, all other states must honor that prosecution.
If you are found innocent then all states must recognize that as well.

Like I said though, I'm not a lawyer.

No, sir. It wasn't a blog. I don't read blogs.

It was just a discussion group. The passage I posted was something that someone else brought up and I wondered what the people here would say about his thought.

I'm not a lawyer either. lol

That's why I formed the title as a question.

Funny thing is...you and I seemingly wind up butting heads quite a bit...but for the most part we actually agree...lol

The way I read that section didn't indicate to me that it would actually be illegal.

Yes!
Sorry about the Get over comment too.

No worries.

I guess I should clarify something.

A lot of the time ( the vast majority of the time ) my posts are nothing more than me playing " Devil's Advocate ".

For the time being, most of it has been from the Rep side because there aren't many here.

I'm just shaking the tree to see what falls out. It's part of the way that I educate myself about things.

LOL
You instigator you!

Yeah. I guess I am.

But at least, sometimes, it makes people think about their responses rather than just use the typical talking points. lol