South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state are probing the constitutionality of the bribe given to Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) in exchange for his vote for Obamacare. The backroom deal which has been called the Nebraska Compromise and the Cornhusker Kickback, permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that all other 49 states must pay.

Continued...

In a letter to Attorney General McMaster, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) wrote "We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49." (source)

But this isn't the only potentially unconstitutional part of the bill. As Obamacare moves closer to becoming law (and possibly even after it does), expect more constitutional issues to arise such as:

The Takings Clause: Part of the fifth amendment to the US Constitution, the clause states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada) on Tuesday renewed the call to examine the constitutionality of whether the federal government can require Americans to purchase a product. This came in response to a mandate included in the Senate bill that individuals must purchase health insurance. "I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Ensign said in a statement. (source)

The Commerce Clause: Part of Section 8 (Powers of Congress), the clause gives Congress the power to regulate Commerce among the States and this seems to be the Democrats' favorite justification for expanding the power of the federal government with regard to health care reform. Many believe this clause is being stretched far beyond its intended usage and we can expect legal arguments that might even reach the US Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare with regard to this clause.

Section 3403: Not part of the US Constitution but rather part of the Senate's health care reform bill itself, this section reads in part, "...it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise. (source) And in case you're wondering what the subsection contains, it outlines the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" - the regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. In other words, the bill puts the government in charge of health care and that can never, ever be changed in any way despite anything contained in the US Constitution.

In the next few months expect to see a corrupt group of politicians led by a former Constitutional Law Professor who are sworn to uphold the Constitution as they attempt to evade it.