Say "NO" to corporate welfare in Kentucky

Kentucky Citizens Judicial President David Adams filed a lawsuit in Franklin Circuit Court challenging the constitutionality of the bulk of the Commonwealth's system of economic development.

Adams asked the court to rule "activities of government in the Commonwealth violate the plain language of the Kentucky Constitution when they treat individuals and groups of individuals differently from each other in terms of taxation, ownership or use of private property or substantial and particular benefits derived from public property."

He seeks temporary and permanent injunctions against continued proliferation of such efforts. Governor Steve Beshear and Secretary of the Cabinet for Economic Development Larry Hayes were named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Adams claimed three specific statutes are unconstitutional and that government economic development "has grown to consume far more collective activity, power, attention and resources than could have been envisioned as recently as 1986."

That's the year a bill in the General Assembly proposed as an effort to attract Japanese automaker Toyota to manufacture cars in Georgetown, Kentucky granted substantial new powers to state government to control private economic activity in the Bluegrass State.

Adams said "substantial waste of state resources and centralization of power in contradicting the plain language and the clear intent of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky" made judicial action necessary.

Kentucky's illegal ObamaCare scheme takes huge hit

Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd ruled this morning against Gov. Steve Beshear's motion to dismiss the second tea party lawsuit filed against him.

Plaintiff David Adams claims the law Beshear is using to justify expanding Medicaid is unconstitutional. Beshear responded that a claim of violation of citizen rights is the same as not alleging "any injury at all."

"The record clearly shows Governor Beshear's attorney argued in court that he doesn't recognize the value of citizens' rights at all," Adams said. "The judge rejected that argument, so now we go on to see if the executive and legislative branches can keep robbing us to buy votes for themselves. I don't think they can."

Insurance official confirms ObamaCare to crush Kentucky

A top official at the Kentucky Department of Insurance has leaked data showing health insurance premiums under ObamaCare will increase by an average of eighty percent at the start of 2014 for the state's largest insurer, Anthem.

DJ Wasson, Acting Director of Kentucky Access, confirmed the skyrocketing rates have been available for a week but has not talked publicly about this and doesn't want anyone to call her at 502-573-1026 for details.

Kentucky's major media figures are apparently determined to respect her privacy in this time of professional turmoil.

Meanwhile, the "told you so's" just keep rolling in. If you are still wondering why we who oppose ObamaCare keep fighting so hard to stop it, this would be a good point at which to ponder the power of big government and the damage it so carelessly inflicts.

Responding to an angry ObamaCare fan

In the June 27 Lexington Herald Leader, Doug Epling went on a tirade against the Tea Party lawsuit seeking to stop the illegal expansion of Medicaid. I just submitted the following response:

While I don't really mind the name-calling directed at me by letter writer Doug Epling on the June 27 Opinions page, I am offended by his reckless disregard for the truth as it applies to Gov. Steve Beshear and leaders of the Kentucky General Assembly attempting to use unconstitutional means to expand Medicaid in Kentucky as part of ObamaCare.

Even if the proposed Medicaid expansion were different than all previous expansions of this disastrous federal "health" program and truly represented even a small portion of the purported economic stimulus some have promised, a proper procedure for making such an enormous policy change exists for good reason. That proper procedure has not been followed.

Kentucky's Constitution very firmly requires checks and balances throughout state government for the protection of all citizens. This basic principle has been flagrantly ignored in Frankfort in this case, to the extent that Gov. Beshear's attorney argued in open court that rights of citizens have no intrinsic value whatsoever. Our fighting men and women have not stared down Death itself so some government employee could succumb to such a backwards view of his function in society.

We should have a vibrant public discussion about the efficacy of Medicaid, its dreary history, its bleak future and the culture of dependency it has exacerbated. But first, we must agree to follow Kentucky law. We can all agree to do that, right? Such is the primary purpose of the lawsuit that now so angers Mr. Epling. That's a shame.

Beshear, Stumbo: what they knew and when

On Thursday, March 25, 1982 with Lieutenant Governor Martha Layne Collins presiding as Senate President, the Kentucky Senate passed a government reorganization bill known then as HB 345. Her Attorney General was future Governor Steve Beshear. The bill would limit interim executive orders filed by Kentucky governors by requiring them to gain subsequent approval by the immediate following General Assembly and provide that orders failing to receive approval could not then be re-introduced until the next session of the General Assembly.

When the bill, as amended by the Senate, got back over to the House, a new member named Greg Stumbo, now Speaker, voted for it. The bill became law, subject to take effect January 1, 1984.

By that time, Steve Beshear was then Lieutenant Governor and Kentucky Senate President.

So it is more than a little odd that on June 19, 2013 Governor Steve Beshear rescinded his failed July 2012 executive order he is currently in court fighting to keep alive beyond its legal death and then re-issued essentially the same executive order. He knows both actions are illegal because he was there holding three of the top offices in state government when it was made so.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo can't plead ignorance, either -- though such is currently in vogue for legislators who wish to escape accountability for inconvenient votes. Again, he voted into law the statute his Governor is now violating to cram ObamaCare down Kentuckians' throats. As a former Attorney General himself, what excuse can Stumbo possibly have for acquiescing to this lawlessness?

And the quiet Republican lawmakers in Frankfort are no better. What a disgraceful episode. Hard to imagine Kentucky's intrepid press corps sleeping through such a slam dunk case of waste, fraud and abuse for much longer. Any judges looking over Adams et. al. v. Beshear surely won't appreciate this blatant disregard for the law.

Alison Lundergan Grimes witnessed key ObamaCare crime

Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes' plans to run for U.S. Senate now pretty much require her to avoid any controversial policy positions. Those plans may need another look after she attested to Gov. Beshear's illegal ObamaCare executive order last Wednesday in her office.

Creation of the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange subjects Kentuckians to billions of dollars in unnecessary taxes, fees and regulatory expenses for no real benefit. While Gov. Beshear may not like that description of his handiwork and may not even agree with it, as a lame duck governor he doesn't really have to care beyond the embarrassment of losing court battles.

But Candidate Grimes has to care a lot. It isn't illegal for a Kentucky Secretary of State to accept a bogus document like this, but as a would-be Senator, she should be expected to talk about it every time she, uh, raises her head. 

Kentucky's pro-ObamaCare contingent has been eerily quiet about the legal fate of their grand plans. Will their new fearless leader now come to their defense?

Beshear's ObamaCare "exchange" gets temporary stay of execution

Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd today granted Gov. Steve Beshear additional time to "prepare" for legal arguments on his ObamaCare "exchange" mess that he now can't win.

Last Wednesday, Beshear conceded all the objections against his illegal 2012 executive order seeking to create an ObamaCare health benefit exchange in Kentucky. He then immediately reissued essentially the same executive order, which is also against the law.

This extra time to do his homework on the case doesn't change anything. The only detail left to determine is the date of death for Kentucky's dalliance with the dramatically underfunded mandate of the state-run health exchange.

Please spread the word. It's now time to turn our focus to shutting down the Medicaid expansion here.

Will media fail to cover Beshear's Waterloo?

By all credible accounts, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear's illegal effort to set up a state-run ObamaCare "exchange" web site without proper legislative approval will come to an ignominious end in Franklin Circuit Court on Monday morning. But will the media be there to bear record of his embarrassing failure?

If alleged threats by Beshear loyalists against Kentucky journalists hit their marks, they might not. On condition of anonymity, several reporters say their editors and producers suggest they may not be allowed to report a negative outcome for Beshear on Monday.

Please call your newspaper, radio and television news departments and ask them to cover Franklin Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd's hearing Monday morning June 24 of the health benefit exchange case known as Adams v. Beshear. The hearing will take place at the temporary Franklin County Courthouse at 669 Chamberlain Avenue in Frankfort at 9am ET.

To recap, Beshear has responded to the legal effort to render his July 2012 executive order creating the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange null and void by rescinding his first executive order and, illegally, issuing a new one. This is in direct violation of KRS 12.028(5) and he must face the music Monday morning.

The hearing is open to the public and you are invited to attend. Bring friends and bring a journalist or two.

Tea Party crushes ObamaCare in Kentucky, step one

The state-run Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange died on Wednesday, but is only now starting to stink badly enough to be noticed.

On Wednesday, Governor Steve Beshear panicked and reissued his July 2012 executive order creating the ObamaCare "exchange," in a very weak attempt to forestall losing the tea party lawsuit challenging his authority to write his own law without legislative approval.

How weak, you ask? This weak: the very law he cited as his authority for creating the exchange in the first place, KRS 12.028, which clearly requires him to get legislative approval he didn't get, also clearly specifies that he can't just reissue failed executive orders.

"This is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of a Kentucky Governor doing," said David Adams, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit to shut down the exchange. "It's about time to tell Beshear to drop this silliness and to 'get over it.'"

This case will be back in Franklin Circuit Court Monday morning, June 24, at 9:00 am ET in the Franklin County Courthouse 669 Chamberlain Avenue in Frankfort.

Stumbo out, Stivers in on Medicaid expansion lawsuit

The plaintiff in a state lawsuit to stop Kentucky from illegally accepting ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion is dropping House Speaker Greg Stumbo as a defendant in the case.

David Adams of Nicholasville, plaintiff in two current cases involving Kentucky's controversial role in attaching itself to unfunded mandates in the so-called "Affordable Care Act," said the move involves legal and political realities.

"Speaker Stumbo and Governor Beshear are of one mind in this matter, I'm already suing Beshear and under Kentucky law, Stumbo is essentially just a legislator," Adams said. "That means he probably can claim legislative immunity to a lawsuit."

"But when President Stivers went on television this week and showed himself clearly to be on the wrong side of Kentuckians' rights in the Medicaid expansion issue just as Republicans in other states are caving in, it became clear to me what needed to be done," Adams said.

"President Stivers wants to have it both ways in accepting the Medicaid expansion by illegal means while claiming to be against it," Adams said. "And if he really thinks he is immune to a court challenge as a member of the legislature, he should read Section 85 of the Kentucky Constitution."

"That's why I'm suing President Stivers to stop him from acting illegally to accept the Medicaid expansion."

Stivers' claim of legislative immunity comes up for debate in Franklin Circuit Court at 9 am ET on Monday, July 15.

Will Obama come to church in Kentucky?

Cigarette smoking is a pretty popular activity in Kentucky. Meanwhile, health insurance rates are about to go  up dramatically for all Kentuckians, but supposedly even more for smokers under an ObamaCare rule (45 CFR 147.102). An interesting twist in the form of an exception to this new rule could stir up controversy within an Administration already rocked by abuses of the Internal Revenue Service and federal officials dropping in unwanted on personal interactions.

This federal rule defines "tobacco use" as "use of tobacco on average four or more times per week within no longer than the past six months."

This is not only ridiculously impossible to monitor (unless the NSA gets involved, perhaps) but it gets sillier. Language in the rule provides exemption to the definition of tobacco use for users engaged in "religious or ceremonial use of tobacco."

How long will it take for health insurance discount seeking smoking aficianados across the Commonwealth to band together and create "churches" devoted to religious
tobacco use?

Yet another reason to get government out of the business of health care and insurance.

Response to Beshear's Motion to Dismiss (Medicaid lawsuit)

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT

DIVISION 1

CASE NO 13-CI-000605

DAVID ADAMS                                                                                   PLAINTIFF

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.                                       DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Comes now the Plaintiff, David Adams, in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

BACKGROUND

            In 1966 the Kentucky General Assembly passed HB 115 and the Governor signed it into law. The resulting statute from this action currently grants absolute authority to the Secretary for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to obligate the Commonwealth to fulfill “any obligation that may be imposed … by federal law” to obtain federal funds. The statute, KRS 205.520(3), clearly violates the plain language of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Section 2, which reads in its entirety “Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and prosperity of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, even in the largest majority.”

Defendants misconstrue much of the rationale for this current action by suggesting it “arises out of the Governor’s announcement that he intends to expand Kentucky’s Medicaid program.” The Governor’s May 9, 2013 press conference announcing his Administration’s unilateral action to apply for Medicaid expansion and thereby obligate taxpayers of the Commonwealth to “any requirement that may be imposed” with no regard for the practically limitless liability such action invites serves as a shocking exhibition of the unconstitutional statute in question, but does not by itself bring about this action. Nor, as Defendants suggest, does an official application to the federal government for an expansion of Medicaid trigger the concept of ripeness to grant this court jurisdiction in this action. The presence of an unconstitutional law triggers this action. Lending support to the urgency and legitimacy of this action is Defendant’s blatantly false claim in their motion that “even if the Commonwealth elects to expand Medicaid pursuant to the ACA, it may later elect to withdraw from such election, even before a potential reduction of its federal share to a level below 100%.”

This absurd falsehood by Defendants helps describe the utter lawlessness and lack of regard for individual rights which only enhance the need for this action.

In the alternative, there is no statute of limitations on the right of an individual to challenge an unconstitutional law. Indeed, nothing limits as to timing the rights of Kentucky citizens to challenge unconstitutional laws.

ARGUMENT

            Contrary to Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff’s constitutional challenge is not ripe because an action Plaintiff seeks to prevent has not yet occurred misses the entire point that KRS 205.520(3), which Defendants cite in their motion as their only authorization for that action, is already null and void.

Further, while it is unclear whether the United States Department of Health and Human Services would recognize a flawed application for Medicaid expansion due to insufficiency within state law as reason to reject the application, that is a chance Plaintiff should not have to take as a consequence of not previously challenging the constitutionality of KRS 205.520(3).

In the alternative, the case law cited by Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss fails to apply to this case by describing circumstances in which means of administrative redress had not yet been exhausted, thereby rendering those actions premature, no such administrative review exists in this case, specifically related to the unconstitutional construction of KRS 205.520(3). As such, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds this action is not yet ripe must be rejected.

            Defendants’ claims that this action presents an attempt to “elicit the Court’s opinion on the constitutionality of prospective executive actions” and should therefore be dismissed fails to persuade, again, because, the statute KRS 205.520(3) itself triggers this action and not some future executive branch activity.

Defendants’ citation regarding prohibition of advisory opinions does not apply to this case because, again, the existence of unchecked “absolute” power as created by KRS 205.520(3) fits perfectly within the jurisdictional boundaries of Section 112(5) of the Kentucky Constitution because this case is justiciable and not within the purview of some other court. This case is not hypothetical in the least, particular damage to Plaintiff as an individual and to citizens of the Commonwealth generally is not only self-evident as a function of the existence of unchecked power, but it can only be effectively addressed here.

Defendants also allege failure to demonstrate standing under KRS 418.040. On this, Defendants also fail on the basis of plain language contradicting their claims. KRS 418.040 states “In any action in a court of record of this Commonwealth having general jurisdiction wherein it is made to appear that an actual controversy exists, the plaintiff may ask for a declaration of rights, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of rights whether or not consequential relief is or could be asked.”

In this, another citation provided by Defendants proves the alternative of their assertion. Quoting Veith v. City of Louisville, Defendants write “a court does not have jurisdiction to decide a question unless there is a real and justiciable controversy involving specific rights of particular parties.” Veith v. City of Louisville, 355 S.W. 2d 295, 297 (Ky. 1962). Existence of a “real and justiciable controversy” is debatable only if one adopts Defendants’ claim that this case is only about a hypothetical future event, which it clearly is not. Prior acts of the Kentucky Health Benefits Exchange reflect already that resources have been expended under the assumption Medicaid will be expanded under KRS 205.520(3). This presupposes administrative action by the Governor he now, through counsel, denies. Further, the very existence of KRS 205.520(3) independent of the Medicaid expansion has and continues to put at great risk the lives, liberty and property of Kentucky citizens in general and the Plaintiff in particular. As such, Defendants’ claim this action represents a mere advisory opinion and that it lacks particularized injury fails.

 Further, Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice of this action. They have in no way made the case for such final action on this matter, even if the case as presently written fails on some jurisdictional or technical grounds, which it does not. The attempt at such denial of rights as well as loss of personal funds already expended by Plaintiff in this matter suggests strongly not only particularization of this case, but the very controversial nature thereof also. For these reasons, Plaintiff asks the Court to reject Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Defendants also claim service of Complaint was not provided upon Governor Beshear, Secretary Haynes and Attorney General Jack Conway. The court’s record of this case will reflect otherwise.

CONCLUSION

Defendants propose four justifications for their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendants seek first and most substantially to dismiss this action on grounds of lack of ripeness. Rather than properly address the chronology provided in the Complaint, however, Defendants seek to turn this constitutional issue of real controversy and judiciability with clear general and particularized harm evident for citizens and taxpayers of the Commonwealth into a cat-and-mouse game in which citizens must wait for Governor Beshear to sign away more of our rights to our own “lives, liberty and property” without question. In short, Defendants wish to use this Court to stifle dissent long enough for them to make an end run around the Constitution in order to exercise powers denied them by the Kentucky Constitution. Plaintiffs request the Court reject Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and also issue a temporary injunction under CR 65.04 against Defendants’ moving in any way to enact the Medicaid expansion at issue in this case.

An email from Mary Lyons, Lexington

Printed with permission:

Just called Gov. "Chicken Biscuits" office and spoke with Katie Mueller re: the court hearing on Monday and told her I was the lady that called yesterday in re: to the Obummercare Medicaid Exchange and saw that he had a court hearing for Monday at 9:00 A.M. at the court house and she "wasn't aware of a court hearing." 

I told I just called to make sure that he was going to be at this hearing because as a Kentuckian I want to hear what he had to say about this and how it is going to affect many Kentucky taxpayers. She said she didn't know about his schedule and that he has legal counsel that would take care of it, but I pressed her and said that he needs to be there because he is the one being sued and Kentucky needs to know what he is up to. 

She said that it was his decision that they were going to accept this exchange regardless. I said, without the vote of the Legislature? She got real good and agitated and said she wasn't going to argue with me about it. I asked to speak to his secretary after she said she didn't have his schedule for Monday, so I could confirm that he was going to be there and she would not transfer me to "Chicken Biscuits" secretary. 

I said, as a Kentuckian taxpayer I have a right to know if the Gov. is indeed going to show up for a court hearing that is as important as this that will affect Kentucky for years. She repeated that the Exchange will be accepted and there is nothing we can do about. God only knows if Governor Chicken Biscuit will show. 

What a freaking coward! I am so glad you sued him. I hope to be there on Monday, if I don't have jury duty. I was chosen for jury duty for the month of June in Fayette County. I love jury duty, I consider them Divine Appointments. I pray that you will have a good day. Stand strong, don't get discouraged or anxious, trust God and obey and He will give the victory. Just keep in mind: GOD HAS EVERYTHING UNDER CONTROL, when we don't think He does. This is the one thing that brings me great joy every day I get up. GOD IS AN ON TIME GOD.

Small town lawyer blisters Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear

Plaintiffs in the Tea Party lawsuit to stop Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear from setting up a state-run ObamaCare "exchange" without legislative approval have filed a motion for summary judgment, which would shut down the exchange.

Attorney Michael Dean, of Irvine, argued for the plaintiffs:

"It is clear that Governor Beshear may not, without legislative action, authority or appropriation, take it upon himself to reorganize state government, create government boards, offices and make appointments to them, promulgate administrative regulations, create budgets, incur debts, enter contracts, impose taxes or fees, accept federal funds and decide how they are to be spent, and commit state dollars to his enormous new bureaucratic undertaking."

"There being no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, as a matter of law the Executive Order and all action taking in furtherance therof and the administrative regulations promulgated thereunder are unconstitutional, and the court should so declare, and should enter a permanent injunction, barring implementation of the Executive Order, voiding all contracts, employment positions, and commitments, and freeze further payments and expenditure of funds by or for the purpose or benefit of the Exchange."

Mr. Dean had Governor Beshear's legal team chasing their tails and barking at the moon. It was more fun than watching Judge Judy catch some poor non-gubernatorial sap in a lie.

The summary judgment motion is scheduled to be heard in Judge Shepherd's courtroom at 9am on Monday June 24, 2013 at 669 Chamberlain Avenue in Frankfort. Everyone is invited to attend.

Freedom going viral in Kentucky

Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear's attempt to ram ObamaCare down the throats of an electorate who rejected Barack Obama resoundingly twice is, unsurprisingly, not going well.

Internal chaos at the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange, the Department of Insurance, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and the Kentucky Democratic Party is masked only superficially by bureaucratic purring about how great ObamaCare is going to be and a remarkably incurious media who wrote hundreds of articles about incompetence in the last (Republican) gubernatorial Administration.

Two lawsuits have been filed to stop the twin state ObamaCare options -- a state run health insurance bureaucracy inauspiciously wrapped up in a web site created to make health insurance buying easier but instead ushering in an era of confusion and complexity not seen since the Byzantine Empire and an expansion of the disastrous Medicaid.

The first case, against the Beshear administration's blatantly illegal establishment of the exchange, nears a quiet end just as Beshear channels Star Wars' Grand Moff Tarkin: "Evacute? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances" seconds before the Death Star explodes.

His case in the second lawsuit is even worse. Governor Beshear's motion to dismiss is scheduled for hearing in Judge Phillip Shepherd's courtroom on Monday June 17 at 9:00 am ET at the Franklin County Courthouse, 669 Chamberlain Avenue in Frankfort. His case dangles precariously on the bizarre -- and already once failed -- assertion that citizens can't question his illegal and unconstitutional acts and the idea that suit can't be brought to stop him from signing the state up for a Medicaid death spiral until he actually does it.

Tea Party activist David Adams, as plaintiff in the Medicaid case, will be arguing the case before the judge next Monday.

"If Gov. Beshear is smart he won't show up," Adams said. "But I'm going to spend the next few days talking up the need for him to defend this mess in person and not hide behind legal shenanigans in the shadows with his lawyers and flacks."

Affordable Legal Care Act, anyone?

A good attorney can be worth far more than his or her weight in gold and I know lots of good attorneys.

But I also know the limitations of a government run cartel and the legal profession is one. If you really need an attorney with legal expertise, go find one with the best available training and experience and pay him or her well. But that occasional need shouldn't necessitate clinging to a regulatory model we know does not serve willing providers and willing consumers very efficiently.

As such, I suggest changing Kentucky law to decriminalize the practice of law without government permission. Would just involve striking one line of statute:

KY Obamacrats seek bids for health exchange "navigators"

Kentucky's ObamaCare coordinators announced today they have issued a request for proposals for people to "help" health insurance consumers wade through the application process to sign up for government controlled health coverage.

The fact that we are wasting millions of dollars to send people around the state to explain a web site costing billions to implement a federal plan spending trillions doesn't inspire confidence on any level.

Not to mention the fact the whole state program was created illegally.

Protecting Kentucky's oath of office

A court hearing July 15 in Frankfort will challenge long-held tradition shielding legislative leaders from lawsuits when they ignore their oath of office.

"To the extent Kentuckians are aware of the oath of office at all, most of us just know the anachronistic prohibition on fighting duels but it also requires protection of the Constitution," said David Adams, plaintiff in two lawsuits challenging the legality of ObamaCare implementation in the Commonwealth.

"Legislative rules have been changed to tolerate lawlessness among legislative leaders and reward violations of the Constitution," Adams said. "We have an opportunity to bring this out in the open and fix it for the benefit of all Kentuckians, so that's the plan."

The hearing will take place during Judge Phillip Shepherd's July 15 motion hour starting at 9am ET at the Franklin County Courthouse, 669 Chamberlain Avenue in Frankfort.

Kentucky Governor gives up, hopes judge won't notice

Many Bluegrass State voters have had reason to wonder if Steve Beshear thinks we are all stupid. With a new court filing just released, members of the Commonwealth's judicial branch can now understand the feeling.

Asked repeatedly which sections of the Kentucky Constitution grant him authority to unilaterally reorganize state government to create an optional health benefit "exchange" under ObamaCare, Beshear has finally answered.

It is shockingly bad.

Beshear claimed the "Executive Order which is the subject of the Complaint is a valid exercise of state executive authority under Sections 69 and 81 of the Kentucky Constitution."

But, of course, it isn't.

Section 69 of the Constitution reads in its entirety: "The supreme executive power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Chief Magistrate, who shall be styled the "Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.""

No, I'm not kidding.

Section 81 is no more helpful to the Governor's flagging case. It reads in its entirety: "Governor to enforce laws. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Again, not kidding.

This is so bad it's almost not funny. Please, Governor, shut down this nonsense now.

Push coming to shove on Kentucky's welfare state mentality

Less than a week remains for Frankfort's three leading politicians to respond to the tea party lawsuit seeking to stop Kentucky's Medicaid expansion and the defendants have so far exercised their right to remain silent.

Governor Steve Beshear and House Speaker Greg Stumbo, as Obama Democrats, can't be expected to hold the rule of law in very high regard. As such, they may even be planning to run another goofy "citizens can't complain" legal gambit up the flagpole. Who knows?

Senate President Robert Stivers may have the more complicated situation. He says he opposes ObamaCare and, indeed, he voted earlier this year to force Gov. Beshear to gain legislative approval before expanding Medicaid, but only under ObamaCare.

This is possibly quite a substantial "but." KRS 205.520(3), which the Senate sought to amend with SB 39 in the 2013 General Assembly, is entirely unconstitutional. The statute grants limitless powers to the Cabinet Secretary of Health and Family Services to apply for federal dollars for "medical assistance." SB 39 would have left that power in place except for as it relates to the very unpopular ObamaCare law. But it violates Section 2 of Kentucky's Constitution in every case, not just this one.

So does Sen. Stivers want to keep this executive power intact so he or someone in his political party may continue to use it? We don't know yet. Frankfort Republicans have been known to get somewhat weak-kneed at the hint of federal dollars, but this case should give Sen. Stivers a chance to firm up his party's reputation on that front.

Sure hope he takes us up on it.