Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
But -- didn't choose to violate it almost seems like a civil war has started there Michigan attorney general Mike Cox is suing the federal government over health care.
But that's just the beginning of his -- he's also the battle of Michigan governor Jennifer grand home of governor grant who went on the record last night.
As the state attorney general.
He represents the state of Michigan as an entity and -- his main client.
Now his main client has been one of the governors has been a co chair of the governor's task force trying to get this bill through because it helps Michigan.
So he wears two hats he can.
File on behalf of himself as the attorney general or on behalf of some other entity -- the people but he cannot file.
On behalf of the state of Michigan he does not represent me so I've asked him instead.
As my lawyer to file in that very case on the other side.
Attorney general -- is here with his side of the story -- -- insert.
Are you doing Greta.
I'm -- -- so I'm not asking do you what you have filed suit with the other with several other -- generals in the state of Florida.
I you doing so -- if your client the state of Michigan or the people.
I credits that people of Michigan under Michigan law that I is the attorney general can -- being.
In federal cases on behalf of interest of the people Michigan his -- as you know never before has the federal government congress or the president.
Force the consumer force a regular citizens -- prices citizenship to buy a product that is -- precedent use.
The interstate commerce clause and we believe it's unconstitutional.
I -- even get to that question they've got to be a party in the lawsuit I'm just trying to figure out.
I learned recently for instance in one state attorney -- I -- permission from the governor or from the state legislature.
Didn't have that.
But can you can you go forward.
Governor Graham says said you can't represent the state of Michigan -- she's the client then.
Which I don't fully understand but -- but that you can represent the people of Michigan and can -- then make your own decision without in her authorization.
Or your legislature.
At that -- by custom that's been banned in mission for a 150 plus years.
-- she indicated last night she had prior.
It the fights as it were with the prior governor of Michigan where she took a different side when she was the attorney general.
Again this is -- part of Michigan lost since we became a state 1837.
And there have been a couple prior occasions where she and I have been opposite sides of federal cases in fact right now I'm defending.
A Michigan constitutional amendment to our our constitution 2006 in federal court.
Where we get -- -- racial preferences and the governor intervened on the other side.
To support the continued affirmative action racial preferences in Michigan.
So it did this is anything unusual Michigan law.
I -- lost but -- but if I would have pull -- that pleaded again down and in a Florida wouldn't say the state of Michigan I'd say the people of Michigan.
Because I'm just great because she says of the says state and Michigan.
She's asked -- to to stop doing that and basically write yourself a -- to tell it to stop doing that.
If it says the state of Michigan.
Tens federal cases that were part of right now -- -- is as the people's lawyer here Michigan have intervene on behalf of the state of Michigan.
That that -- -- in in federal under the federal court -- -- customary that the attorney general speaks for the state but given the governor's request.
We're gonna accommodate her request and we'll change -- -- and the state attorney general Mike tax on behalf of the people of Michigan.
And if -- so -- that she had thing yet she can intervene.
And I'm president Obama's side.
Let's should probably then that's settle -- that procedural hurdle for -- -- of for both and he can both and go for.
You are running for governor.
Do you have any sort of sense and know that it's neck and neck at least is the good for the polls that -- -- That you and encourage their books are pretty closely -- polls ready for the primary right do you have any idea I am.
But let me ask is is your decision in part political -- the people -- behind -- on this one are against it.
Well Greta -- like USA today indicated the people of America.
I I think are behind me it as to work.
But more importantly I I think I -- made this decision two years ago or three years ago.
The reality is -- read his run for office this year Nancy Pelosi is running for office this year.
Folks in congress -- run for office this year.
And constitutionally most importantly.
If they said before never before and I find in fact one of your colleagues at Georgetown law school professor Barnett.
Is articulated -- and is supporting our position that never before has congress been allowed to do what they did here.
I am my retirement there's whether the mandate itself or in people the vibrant health -- on customers -- so.
Have you yet done the research let's say hypothetically that you win on that argument.
That the mandate is determined to be unconstitutional that provision where does that -- undermine the entire statue in fact entire health care bill or just the mandate.
Well Greta I suspect the federal legislation as -- -- ability caught clots which is often the case where form part of struck down the rest of the legislation.
Continues on but in terms -- the funding.
You know I haven't seen the numbers -- in the internal numbers that the Obama administration has but I expect this was part of the funding mechanism.
As speaker Gingrich win over there's some funky accounting here -- some cooked books.
That the Obama administration used the push this through but expecting I expect that they are counting on the mandate to help provide some of the revenue.
That they need to make their numbers to extent that they do work work.
Tide turns out thank you sir will be watching of course thank you -- Thank you Greta you.
Filter by section