Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 03/12/2010 9:55:31 AM PST by MichCapCon
Lawmakers opposed to President Barack Obama's plan for national health care reform are hoping to spur a nationwide "civil disobedience" that can derail Obamacare.
State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland; State Rep. Justin Amash, R-Kentwood; and State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, have each introduced similar constitutional amendments that seek to trump the national health care bills.
For example, Sen. Kuipers' bill would prohibit a federal law from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It also prevents anyone from being penalized for ignoring the federal law.
"Where this is going, I don't know," Kuipers said this week. "You don't know until the states try to do it."
According to a 10th Amendment think tank, 26 states have attempted their own versions of Kuipers' bill. Arizona has had its version passed by both houses of Congress, and it will be voted on by residents in November. Virginia also had both houses of Congress pass a similar bill, and it is awaiting the governor's signature.
Constitutional law experts say state law does not take precedence over federal law.
"This would violate the U.S. Constitution if challenged," Frank Ravitch, a professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, wrote in an e-mail.
Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Penn Law School, wrote in an e-mail that the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law power over state law.
"States cannot say no to a federal mandate," Roosevelt wrote. "Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."
Michael Boldin, founder of the 10th Amendment Center — a public policy think tank in Los Angeles — said there are cases where state resistance has stymied federal law.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a U.S. federal law that was to impose new security standards for a state's driver's licenses. Many states opposed it with their own state laws, and the act has not been implemented, Boldin said.
"Basically a bunch of people all across the country are saying, 'No. We aren't going to go along with it,' and getting state government to back them," Boldin said. "They (federal government) didn't threaten to take away funding. They didn't send in armed guards. They just repeatedly delayed implementation. In fact, it (REAL ID) is null and void.
"The real success in these actions is 'we the people' saying we are in charge and the federal government is not going to force things down our throat."
Boldin said medical marijuana could also be a route that the states go in their battle against Obama's health care plan.
In California and Michigan, the state law is in conflict with the national law on marijuana. In both states, the federal government can prosecute for medicinal marijuana use even though the state allows it.
"You can have a situation where federal law prohibits something that states permit," Roosevelt said. "That means that the state won't arrest or prosecute you for it, but the federal government still might. State law can't protect you from federal law. But enforcement of marijuana laws is a low priority for the federal government, so effectively you might be safe — I think the Obama administration actually had a policy statement about how they weren't going to devote resources to this in California."
Boldin said that is why it is important for as many states as possible to join the other states if they want to make Obamacare realistically unenforceable.
State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland; State Rep. Justin Amash, R-Kentwood; and State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, have each introduced similar constitutional amendments that seek to trump the national health care bills.
For example, Sen. Kuipers' bill would prohibit a federal law from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It also prevents anyone from being penalized for ignoring the federal law.
"Where this is going, I don't know," Kuipers said this week. "You don't know until the states try to do it."
According to a 10th Amendment think tank, 26 states have attempted their own versions of Kuipers' bill. Arizona has had its version passed by both houses of Congress, and it will be voted on by residents in November. Virginia also had both houses of Congress pass a similar bill, and it is awaiting the governor's signature.
Constitutional law experts say state law does not take precedence over federal law.
"This would violate the U.S. Constitution if challenged," Frank Ravitch, a professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, wrote in an e-mail.
Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Penn Law School, wrote in an e-mail that the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law power over state law.
"States cannot say no to a federal mandate," Roosevelt wrote. "Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."
Michael Boldin, founder of the 10th Amendment Center — a public policy think tank in Los Angeles — said there are cases where state resistance has stymied federal law.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a U.S. federal law that was to impose new security standards for a state's driver's licenses. Many states opposed it with their own state laws, and the act has not been implemented, Boldin said.
"Basically a bunch of people all across the country are saying, 'No. We aren't going to go along with it,' and getting state government to back them," Boldin said. "They (federal government) didn't threaten to take away funding. They didn't send in armed guards. They just repeatedly delayed implementation. In fact, it (REAL ID) is null and void.
"The real success in these actions is 'we the people' saying we are in charge and the federal government is not going to force things down our throat."
Boldin said medical marijuana could also be a route that the states go in their battle against Obama's health care plan.
In California and Michigan, the state law is in conflict with the national law on marijuana. In both states, the federal government can prosecute for medicinal marijuana use even though the state allows it.
"You can have a situation where federal law prohibits something that states permit," Roosevelt said. "That means that the state won't arrest or prosecute you for it, but the federal government still might. State law can't protect you from federal law. But enforcement of marijuana laws is a low priority for the federal government, so effectively you might be safe — I think the Obama administration actually had a policy statement about how they weren't going to devote resources to this in California."
Boldin said that is why it is important for as many states as possible to join the other states if they want to make Obamacare realistically unenforceable.
Not so much civil disobedience, but federalism...remember that concept?
Federalism? Obama and the Politbureau never herard of that.
“Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law power over state law. “
And, by any reasonable reading, Ammendment X limits the scope and power of the federal government.
“States cannot say no to a federal mandate,” Roosevelt wrote. “Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void.”
The Founders, whose fathers and grandfathers were all too familiar with over reaching central government, would never have intended the above.
IMHO these “push back” state laws and resolutions are worthwhile, clear shots across the bow of a radical Congress and Marxist President.
Should National Socialized Health Care become law, these states should be the first to challenge it, for under Article III Section 2, the suits would go immediately to the Supreme Court.
“It really comes down to this: My conservative political philosophy does not threaten or affect the freedom of liberals. I don’t ask them to sacrifice anything for me, but they DEMAND I sacrifice for them”
Perhaps the forgotten components in this debate is the ‘consent of the governed’ and the prerogative of the people to start a fresh. It seems the lawyers and pols have forgotten these things or more likely would rather ignore them.
Well they not only did not intend it, they stated it in Article I Section 8 which limited Congress to enumerated powers.
The Supremacy Clause applies to laws that the federal government has the Constitutionally delegated authority from the people to create in the first place. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to make this law over us? Unconstitutional laws are void on their face. They don’t need the States to nullify them, but it might prove helpfull for the people to have their support in this fight.
“The Supremacy Clause applies to laws that the federal government has the Constitutionally delegated authority from the people to create in the first place.”
Well said. There are several forms of legal resistance to the federal government still available.
1. Increase your exemptions on your W-2 to the maximum legal amount and starve the beast.
2. Short your estimated tax payments but save enough to pay your “legally” due taxes.
3. Boycott financial supporters of politicians who vote for this.
4. Kick the bums out.
5. Cash out your 401k’s now.
6. State AGs can file for injunctions in federal courts and continue to file non-stop bringing the federal court system to a halt.
There are many ways to fight this if it passes.
That's what they'd like you to believe. They might try comprehending the 10th amendment.
Ping
I don’t think the CBO factored this in their estimate of how much this nationalized healthcare would cost, not that I believed their estimates anyway. It will probably be 10 times their estimate.
Yes they would, and almost overnight. Congress has no legal or constitutional authority to write health care legislation at all. ZERO.
It will get struck down by the supreme court, which has already thwarted Obama a couple of times. LOL The more I think about it, the more I recognize that they are gonna make SCOTUS look like the bad guys. It does so many things just right. They know they lost this fight in the public arena. They pass it, and then the states challenge it, and SCOTUS strikes it down. Obama gets to be all pissed off as well as liberals ect. We will see right then just how big a foe we fight, the left will be outraged and we will be able to see how big they are. They will paint SCOTUS as the bad guy, and lower their credibility with the people. It will also make it harder for SCOTUS to continue to oppose the administration, supporting the constitution. It will be our PROOF that Obama and the Liberals/progressives are out to destroy the constitution. Its PROOF.
Is that not a threat to our sovereignty? Is that not Treason of the HIGHEST Order?
That too.
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.