Democrats in Congress although they believe they have the votes to pass President Obama’s legislative victory on health care could face another hurdle even after the bill is signed if a number of (GOP) State Attorneys General have their way.

S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster and at least 12 others are working on a constitutional challenge to the Senate version of the massive overhaul bill. McMaster and others belive strongly that the health care bill violates commerce and tax uniformity guarantees by treating one state differently than the other 49.

The Attorneys General are investigating the legality of a Medicaid arrangement that was purportedly negotiated with Senator Ben Nelson to win his vote, giving the Democrats the 60th vote needed for the “super majority” to block any filibuster attempt by the opponents of the Senate bill.

The group of Attorneys General believe that without the special arrangement given to only one Senator and one State gives them the magic bullet of the 60th vote leaving the other 49 states without the permanent exemption that Nebraska is offered for an expansion of Medicaid which the bill Mandates. In effect the other states will be required to “pick up the costs” for Nebraska.

“In other words, if this amendment stands, taxpayers from South Carolina and other states will be paying the bills for the increase in Nebraska’s Medicaid population,” McMaster said. “The Nelson provision is unusual in that there is no cut off date or phase out. Many provisions in federal law have a sunset date – say two, five, 10, or even 20 years – but this provision will continue in perpetuity.”

That raises “very serious” concerns about equity, tax fairness and the constitutionality of federal tax levies and mandates that treat one state differently from all the others, McMaster said.

“If the Nelson provision is not unprecedented, I feel comfortable in saying it is an exceptionally rare occurrence,” the South Carolina attorney general said. “States generally are treated in a similar manner. In this case, Nebraska will be treated in a widely divergent manner than any other state.”

McMaster said he had instructed his attorneys to look into the provision’s constitutionality and to explore what legal options might be available if it is enacted.

As of Thursday afternoon, the attorneys general of 12 other states had joined McMaster, including Michigan attorney general Mike Cox, and those of Alabama,Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Colorado,Utah,Florida,North Dakota,Idaho and South Dakota.

So far, Wisconsin attorney general J.B. Van Hollen, also a Republican, is not among the challengers.

On Monday, Van Hollen’s spokesman Bill Cosh distanced the Wisconsin attorney general from the effort, saying it was too early to act against a bill that is not yet the law of the land.

“It is simply premature to act on what is currently pending federal legislation,” Wisconsin Department of Justice spokesman Bill Cosh said. “No doubt Washington policy makers have heard the concerns of citizens and other elected officials over the current state of and their actions to pass health insurance reform legislation. Hopefully they will consider these views and concerns as they continue their work to conclude action on and send a bill to the president for his consideration.”

McMaster himself acted after receiving a letter from South Carolina’s two U.S. Senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint both Republicans, who questioned not only the constitutionality but its financial impact of the provision.

In their Dec. 21 letter, they point out, the legislation expands Medicaid by requiring states to cover residents with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line. In South Carolina alone, they stated, more than 500,000 people would be added to the rolls, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $1 billion by the year 2019.

McMaster said Democrats and Republicans alike from across the country should be outraged by the deal, which he called potentially corrupt.

“Whatever the legal status may be, and we may soon find out, these negotiations – on their face – amount to a form of vote buying,” he said. “And whether in the court of law or the court of public opinion, we must bring an end to this culture of corruption.”