States nullify all requirements
(Tea Party) – A multitude of lawsuits have been filed over Obamacare. Among them is the controversial lawsuit by a group of nuns that have refused to participate based on religious grounds. Christian colleges have done the same.
Millions of people from coast-to-coast have lost their health insurance, cancelled because their plans do not meet the Obamacare requirements, despite being assured by the president of the United States they could keep their plan if they liked it. Tens of millions more cancellations are expected to blindside even more Americans this year. And yet, despite the deep issues and concerns, the severe problems, ill-prepared agencies, lack of security and incomprehensible costs Americans will pay, Obama and his administration continue to press on with the Affordable Care Act.
The nation has been left in a quandary: what to do about Obamacare.
One Senator believes he has the answer and is stepping up with a simple, direct approach.
Sen. John Lamping’s legislation, SB 546 simply reads, “no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”
The legislation provides a deterrent for health insurance carriers to cooperate with Obamacare. Licenses would be suspended for any carrier that “accepts any remuneration that may result in the imposition of penalties contrary to the public policy set forth in this section.”
Further, it adds, “The attorney general shall take such action as is provided in this subsection in the defense or prosecution of rights protected under section 1.330 and this section. It is the duty of the attorney general to seek injunctive and any other appropriate relief as expeditiously as possible to preserve the rights and property of the residents of the state of Missouri …”
Missouri is not alone in its plan to steamroll over Obamacare. South Carolina has put forth a plan that would exempt businesses and citizens from the Affordable Care Act.
It effectively takes the Obamacare mandate and throws it into reverse. It would prohibit state agencies and officers from implementing the federal mandate at all. The state insurance exchanges would be outlawed and the state attorney general could sue over the enforcement.
Those who support the bill argue that is in sync with the Founding Father’s solution for those states who encounter an unwarranted federal law. Known as the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act, House Bill 3101 has made strong progress, passing the House in a 65-34 vote. In the near future it will go to the Senate.
Sen. Tom Davis, the chief sponsor of the bill, claims there are several aspects of the bill which “in my judgment are legal, effective and within the state’s power to do.”
Joe Wolverton II at the New American says it, “takes the teeth out of the Obama administration’s ability under Obamacare to impose penalties on employers who take … federal subsidies.”
Georgia is expected to follow suit and file a similar action. According to Wolverton the movement is based on “the anti-commandeering doctrine that has long been a key principle of federalism.”
“Put simply, anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern ‘international and interstate matters,’” Wolverton wrote.
Mack and Printz v. United States case in 1997 confirmed it, says Wolverton. In that case two sheriffs brought a lawsuit against the Clinton administration over “unconstitutional gun control measures.” The Supreme Court decided in favor of the sheriffs.
As many as 10 more states, including Oklahoma, could be on-board soon reports the Tenth Amendment Center.
The right answer is: nullification
According to Wolverton, the most powerful weapon we have is nullification. “The states, through the exercise of the Tenth Amendment and their authority to rule as sovereign entities, may stop Obamacare at the state borders by enacting state statutes nullifying the healthcare law and criminalizing state participation in administering or executing the unconstitutional provisions thereof. Nullification is the ‘rightful remedy’ and is a much more constitutionally sound method of checking federal usurpation. It is quicker and less complicated than an attempt to have the law repealed by Congress or overturned by a future federal bench more respectful of the Constitution,” wrote Wolverton.
Nullification has been applied across a wide range of issues already, including the recent marijuana laws as well as gun regulations and driver’s license requirements says Michael Maharrey, spokesperson for the Tenth Amendment Center. Colorado and Washington both made marijuana legal, despite the federal ban.
The Tenth Amendment Center has a model for achieving nullification which includes rejecting the federal law, a specific act that implements nullification and legal challenges.
Nullification was a concept presented in the film, “Nullification: The Rightful Remedy” which noted that among the early Americans who recognized the strategy was Thomas Jefferson.
“His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word ‘nullification’ into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that ‘nullification … is the rightful remedy’ when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers,” the move explains. “In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were ‘duty bound to resist’ when the federal government violated the Constitution.”
The foundation for the idea stems from the fact that states predate the union. Added to that, the Declaration of Independence talks of “free and independent states” that have the ” “power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
Therefore, the union protects the states and represents their actions but does not own them.
A previous poll showed 29 percent of registered American voters believe that to restore our liberties, an “armed revolution” may be in order. Among Republicans, 44 percent believe that armed revolution may be needed. In that poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University, 44 percent of those surveyed believe that states should have the right to block those federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds and among the remaining respondents, thirty-six percent disagree and 20 percent are undecided .
Another poll said Americans already know the solution—reject unconstitutional federal laws. An editorial that appeared in the Washington Times said that nullification supporters “see it as a necessary and effective tool to protect states and citizens from the every-growing power of the federal government.”
Even the California State Senate approved legislation that prevents the president from executing indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, joining dozens of other states that have done the same.
A proposal in Missouri declares all federal gun regulations unenforceable, reported Fox News.
“We have the authority to enforce these laws. We are trying to position us so that we in this state can have safer neighborhoods,” says Missouri state Rep. Doug Funderburk.
Tea Party CEO Steve Eichler, noted that the federal government “only has about 30 enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution.”
The Tenth Amendment states that any issue not found in the U.S. Constitution is to be left up to individual states to decide.
Eichler says the US has “gone grossly astray.” The federal government is “involved in nearly every aspect of our daily lives from what foods we put into our bodies to what we’re allowed to watch on television,” says the group.
Columnist Walter Williams put forth the argument that “moral people” can’t rely only on the courts to determine what’s right and what’s wrong.
Wrote Williams: “Suppose Congress enacted a law – and the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional – requiring American families to attend church services at least three times a month,” he wrote. “Should we obey such a law? Suppose Congress, acting under the Constitution’s commerce clause, enacted a law requiring motorists to get eight hours of sleep before driving on interstate highways. Its justification might be that drowsy motorists risk highway accidents, and accidents affect interstate commerce. Suppose you were a jury member during the 1850s and a free person were on trial for assisting a runaway slave, in clear violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Would you vote to convict and punish?
“A moral person would find each one of those laws either morally repugnant or to be a clear violation of our Constitution. You say, ‘Williams, you’re wrong this time. In 1859, in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 constitutional.’ That court decision, as well as some others in our past, makes my case. Moral people can’t rely solely on the courts to establish what’s right or wrong. Slavery is immoral; therefore, any laws that support slavery are also immoral. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.’”