Tim you ignorant putz. The 10th Amendment nullfies your entire arguement.
An earlier thread today wondered when Virginia was going to join in. Good to see they have started.
Don't know just HOW it presently stands. Some of this stuff was interesting;
Do federal laws override state laws when the two are in conflict?
This decision of 1842 seems pretty conclusive:
[sorry, this link no longer works]
http://law.jrank.org/pages/13486/Prigg-v-Pennsylvania.html
"The ruling upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution in which federal laws take precedence over state laws when regulating the same activity. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution is one major avenue for the national government to exercise its authority over states.
From the 1930s New Deal era through the 1970s the federal government significantly grew by increasingly regulating many facets of life.
By the 1980s states' rights proponents began to reverse the trend. Debates over federal controls continued into the late 1990s focused on proposed national health care reforms.
At the center of issues intensively debated by the founders of the United States was federalism, the distribution of power between the federal and state governments. Dispute over the degree of centralization of political power in the United States highlighted by debates between Alexander Hamilton and JamesMadison led to formation of the first political parties in the nation.
>>>>>>>> LINK
As a result, the Supremacy Clause was written into Article IV of the Constitution providing the primary basis for the federal government's power over states. The article states the "acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. Thestates have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of" federal law."
Think again.
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. - "The Law" Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
Well, if one single small state was to stand up to the Federal government, they’d have a tough time. A state like Maryland or New Hampshire, you know what I mean.
But if it was a state like Texas or Ohio or one of the biggies, the feds wouldn’t stand a chance. Not a chance.
To remain in good standing as US citizens or residents of the US, all persons must take the oath and affix their signature and fingerprints to a document that confirms that the oath was taken. The Congress shall have the power to enact measures to collect the fine and enforce the oath. "All persons" shall mean all persons at or over the age of 18.
The American voter can nulify this administration and the entire congress!
Of COURSE the Constitution says that it and federal laws are the supreme law of the land! It would be absurd for the Constitution to say otherwise.
But when the federal government abuses its powers, or usurps powers, the states have the right to resist.
If the federal government is wise enough to back down, good.
If the federal government is wicked and stupid enough not to back down, the people have the right to “alter or abolish it,” as some kook right-wing nutcase in the 18th Century put it.
The only way the feds can acquire general jurisdiction is by offering the states a voluntary federal program and federal funding to help implement the program. If accepted by the state, they can make the money conditional upon accepting the entire program whole. This is how Medicaid is done.
For example Governor Schwarzenegger recently attempted to cut eligibility for benefits for the federal In Home Support Services for the elderly. The courts ruled he could not make the cuts. He can only completely opt out of the program. It's either in or out, period.
The Constitution does not give the federal government direct jurisdiction to make your personal health care choices. So that is grounds for a Constitutional challenge. They could conceivably gain jurisdiction over insurance companies, medical care providers and pharmacies (in effect the alternatives for care you might chose from) through the Interstate Commerce Act.
The state's can't nullify a program that they have the power to turn away.
10th amendment, 14th amendment. Damn right they can.
Actually, it occurs to me that closing schools might be a good next step. Why am I paying for the indoctrination of the next generation into values I abhor?
Whenever a state wants to protect the rights of it’s citizens, someone brings up segregation. Frankly, we’d have figured out to oppose segregation without supreme court rulings. But there is a tremendous difference between the government requiring a state government to provide equal services to it’s citizens, and the government requiring people to purchase goods and services from other private individuals.
In this matter, it would actually be more justifiable for the government to raise taxes and provide medical care. But what will the government do if we say “well, we looked at all the insurance companies, and we found NONE that we wish to associate with”?
Will the government claim that our 1st amendment right to choose our own associations can be trumped by a mere act of Congress requiring that we enter into contractual arrangements against our will?
90 million armed and angry citizens can effectively nullify any treasonous act of Congress.
Is this accurate?