Posted on 04/21/2010 9:17:27 AM PDT by Nachum
A committee of Louisiana lawmakers has advanced a bill to the full House that seeks to stop federal health care reform from taking effect in the state.
The proposed constitutional amendment states that "no law or rule shall compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system."
"We think the people ought to decide if this is how they want to be governed," Louisiana Health and Hospitals Secretary Alan Levine told the committee. "Basically the state is asserting it's sovereignty."
The governor's office says the federal government is treading on state's rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at wwl.com ...
The list, ping
Bring it to 45 of the states:
California, Mass, Md, NJ and NY deserve it.
Nullification? Didn’t South Carolina try this about 180 years ago?
Traditionally yes, but can we get absolution since we elected Chistie in as governor?
Mr. Chairman, today, I'm proposing an amendment to this bill.
.......according to judicial analyst, and judge, Andrew P. Napolitano healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments. Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............
============================================
Wall Street Journal | Jan. 2, 2010 | Orin Hatch et al
FR Posted by Military family member
The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects. (Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
======================================
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
Which constitution is being amended in this measure? The Louisiana or the United States? Challenges to the constitutionality of a federal law have to be made at the federal level. States don’t get to opt out of federal laws by acting purely at the state level.
Yeah, but South Carolina tried to illegally take federal property. That’s what I’ve been told by yankees anyway.
The state tried to nullify two federal tariff laws by declaring them unconstitutional and therefore null and void in South Carolina.
Gee- How is May Landrieu going to like this?
See thread # 2497546 about an employer in that state who had a confrontation with her.
Pelican State ping
A Dim proposed a bill to stop it from happening but I think we are red enough to see our bill passed.
Meanwhile, the powers that be in San Juan are licking their chops at the prospect of all the chavos Puerto Rico is going to get courtesy of Obamacare.
I say, tough, Mary. She has been sending me her ya da ya da e-mails about her stand on the 300,000 oops, I mean, healthcare and she is sticking to her rhetoric. Hopefully we can let her know in 2014 how WE feel about her votes in the Senate!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.