Things are heating up under the Gold Dome with Republicans mounting an attack against state Attorney General Thurbert Baker for refusing to file a lawsuit challenging the new federal health care legislation.

Democrat Baker, a candidate for his party's gubernatorial nomination, rejected a request by Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue to take such action. Baker contends there's no legally viable case even though the attorneys general of 14 other states have joined in a challenge of the health care takeover.

Rather than lock horns with Baker, Perdue opted to enlist outside attorneys willing to do the work for free.

But in the Georgia House a resolution for impeachment of Baker was filed Tuesday by Republican Mark Hatfield of Waycross, citing the failure to file the lawsuit requested by Perdue. Even if the resolution gets through the House, Democrats hold enough Senate seats to block impeachment.

Potentially more threatening to Baker is a resolution introduced in the House last week directing him "to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutional merit of Public Law 111-148."

The resolution cites Article V of the Georgia Constitution that states the attorney general shall "perform such duties as shall be required by law." If a majority of the legislators approve the resolution, it would become law and thus Baker presumably would be bound to obey it.

The sponsor of HR 1824 is Rep. Austin Scott (R-Tifton), a Republican candidate for governor. Listed as second sponsor is Speaker David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge). Does that mean the skids are greased for this resolution? Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth) is also a sponsor.

This could set up another court battle over the powers of the governor and the attorney general, harking back to a 2003 Georgia Supreme Court decision. In that case, the court's 7-2 opinion held that Perdue had "no clear legal right to order" Baker to dismiss an appeal of a court decision invalidating a state redistricting plan.

The majority said "a state statute vested the attorney general with the authority to litigate in the voting rights action," and thus he "had the power to seek a final determination on the validity of the state Senate redistricting statute under the federal Voting Rights Act."

If HR 1824 gets through the General Assembly and Baker refuses to obey the directive, the stage would be set for the state Supreme Court to decide if its 2003 decision would mean the attorney general had to follow the new law.

In the 2003 case, Justice George H. Carley dissented, joined by Justice P. Harris Hines of Marietta, contending that the Georgia Constitution confers on the governor the ultimate authority in such matters. Article V says the attorney general shall represent the state "in all capital felonies and in all civil and criminal cases in any court when required by the governor..."

But the majority opinion sought to narrow its scope to the "uniqueness of legislative reapportionment."

Now the question is: Will the court have to revisit the issue again?

dmckee9613@aol.com