.jpg)
AP Photo/Steve Helber
Lawmakers in 34 states, from both major parties, have now either proposed, passed or are in the process of enacting laws that draw a line in the sand on states rights, preemptively nullifying at least parts of ObamaCare.
From USA Today:
Earlier this month, Virginia became the first state to pass a law allowing its residents to opt out of the proposed federal requirement that everyone have health insurance, a key element of Obama's plan.
Legislatures in Utah and Idaho this month also approved measures limiting the scope of the proposed $950 billion health care bill pending in Congress.
A host of other state legislatures also are considering new laws and promoting constitutional amendments that would limit federal requirements. Most follow Virginia's lead in nullifying the mandate on health insurance...
...The state measures are likely to be challenged in court, setting up new legal battles over whether federal law can trump state laws.
As I have noted, even the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison, is on the record rejecting the left's outrageously dishonest bastardization of the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses--upon which the Democrats' entire legal argument for ObamaCare rests.
The federal government has no authority under the Constitution to even be involved in health care, let alone to impose such tyrannical mandates on the states while overturning their laws. The federal government was supposed to be a coalition between the states with narrowly limited powers (as the European Union is to Germany and France), not a ruling body over them.
Additionally, the Declaration of Independence states that when government becomes adversarial to the interests of the people, the people have both the right and the responsibility to rise up and "alter or abolish" that government.
All governmental legitimacy comes from We the People. There is no federal government that we do not authorize. And right now, corrupt tyrants in Washington are trampling our will, our Constitution and our rights with total impunity. This cannot and will not go unanswered.
Let's just hope it can be resolved in the courts.
Comments
No, let's hope that somewhere America has real leaders to stand for our constitution. Enough with relativistic legalism.
Here's another article by the professor quoted in the article saying that "These laws are sort of legally meaningless and meant to have a predominantly political impact":
www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/08/25/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance/
Might as well accept it. HCR is going to pass and it will likely survive any constitutional challenge.
seems like that whole "state's rights" issue was brought to a head in the 1860s - and y'all lost.
Forcing us to have government healthcare is unconstitutional!
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” - Patrick Henry
Check out this proposed amendment to the constitution.
H. J. Res. 30 The Dems are trying to get the U.S.Constitution amended because mandated healthcare is unconstitutional.
Proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality. Proposed by Rep. Jesse Jackson [D-IL]
H.J.Res 30
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
Article --
SECTION 1. All persons shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.'.
Patriot - Did you read that amendment? It was proposed in 2005 and has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Seriously, please at least try.
Tom, it had 35 co-sponsors. So what if it was proposed in 2005-2006? The FACT that the amendment was proposed in 2005-2006 PROVES the Dems know mandated healthcare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Otherwise why author a proposed healthcare amendment to the U.S. Constitution? That's the point I was making. Please try to focus on comprehension, instead of ridicule.
Tom, Sec. 2 of the proposed amendment.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.'.
See Einstein, they knew in 2005 they don't have to power to mandate healthcare for everyone. Try to keep up Tom!
Tom, Sec. 2 of the proposed amendment.
SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.'.
See Einstein, they knew in 2005 they don't have the power to mandate healthcare for everyone. Try to keep up Tom!
Yankee,
Eevery other country in the Western Hemisphere abolished slavery without firing a single shot. Just because states' rights were also trampled during the Civil War doesn't justify doing it again now.
Accept that the Constitution is going to be trampled? Um, no thanks.
Patriot - That's absurd and I frankly believe you have to know that. There is no way that the proposal of an amendment that all people have the right to equal high level quality health care means that they anticipated a constitutionality challenge to the individual mandate. B simply does not follow from A. Really, you guys have to come up with better stuff than this.
It is good that many states are pursuing these measures; however, this is only one among several reasons why the health care bill should not be passed.
It is the resurrection of the fascist health care system here in the United States. As Shooter Gennings states in his song "Summer of Rage", "The death
machine isn't slowing down, its gaining pound for pound." The U.S. Constitution is being destroyed. Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have just
introduced the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 on March 4 of this year. The bill number is S. 3081. If this bill
is passed Americans can be arrested for any reason without warning and held indefinitely or even deported for torture. Does all of this sound familiar?
These are the hallmarks of fascism and it is coming here to America. Once heralded as the land of the free, a paradise to which many people in the world
desired to come, America is about to enter a full scale police state.
If you still believe the Civil War was primarily about slavery, you need to go read some decent history books.
What it did do was determine the relative power of the federal vs state governments, whether you like the result or not - you have to deal with reality.
And somehow I doubt you'll whine so loudly if the Supreme Court decides the Second Amendment overrides state and local laws.
Tom, it's very convenient how you ignore article 2 of the proposed amendment. Why do you quote article 1 but not 2... art. 2 is what would give them the power legislate healthcare. The only person you deceive is yourself, and I think you know that.
To be blunt, FDR’s special-interest justices scandalously treated the 10th A. protected state powers as a wives’ tale in Wickard v. Filburn, IMO.
Again, Obama, Reid and Pelosi seem to be basing constitutionally unauthorized Obamacare legislation on the perversion of the Commerce Clause by FDR’s puppet justices in Wickard v. Filburn, as opposed to the USSC’s state sovereignty-respecting note on Congress’s lack of power to regulate healthcare in Linder v. United States.
The bottom line is that Constitution-defending patriots have a big mess to clean up in DC in this year’s midterm elections.
But about six years later, after FDR had nominated eight puppet justices, the USSC essentially swept 10th A. protected state powers under the carpet.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood." --Justice Jackson(?), Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Continued in next post.
First, before FDR had nominated his showcase of pro-big federal government justices, the USSC respected 10th A. protected state sovereignty as evidenced by the following excerpt.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. 18 The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden." --United States v. Butler, 1936.
Continued in next post.
I’m glad that Patriot pointed out H. J. Res. 30 for the following reason.
First, note that the USSC has already decided that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into the medical practice.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
But it appears that while the Republican-controlled Congress essentially respected the USSC’s decision in Linder in 2005, the post-‘08 Democratic-controlled Congress evidently decided to base unconstitutional federal healthcare legislation on the USSC’s perversions of the Commerce Clause during the FDR administration. In fact, contrast the following before / after references to the 10th A, protected state powers in USSC case opinions during the FDR administration.
Continued in next post.
Can I see something in writing from Congress that allows non-medical persons in government to make laws that over-rule medical trained persons and healthcare organizations.Will non medical clerks have a computer at the drive in window at hospitals and Dr offices where we can drive by to allow someone non medical to tell us if we can come in or if we have to drive back home? How long will it take before we can see a Dr and why do I have to pay for people I don't know ? Wonder what color the medical chip will be...just curious.
Yankee,
Wrong. The Civil War was about more than slavery, but slavery was clearly the trigger and the backdrop. And yes, the Constitution was utterly trampled by the North. And no, that doesn't make it okay to continue doing it now.
patriot, what does Jesse Jackson have anything to do with the Constitution?--other than rewriting it in order to have a liberal bent.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!