Posted on 05/27/2010 8:57:32 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, May 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Voters in Oklahoma will be given a chance in November to decide whether they want to reject the core of the recently-enacted national health care reform, which includes taxpayer-funded abortion and requires individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, thanks to a legislative action that bypassed the objections of pro-abortion Democrat Gov. Brad Henry.
The state’s House of Representatives approved Senate Joint Resolution 59 with a strong bipartisan majority of 88-9. SJR 59 allows citizens to vote up or down a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit “forced participation in a health care system,” and allow individuals to pay directly for health services and carry private health insurance.
The House had waited to act on the Senate resolution, in hopes of overriding the governor’s veto of a resolution that would have enacted the ban via statute. However, after the veto override attempt failed last week, the House enacted the version putting the question to voters.
Because the SJR 59 is a referendum question, the decision will bypass the governor and go directly to the people on the November 2 state ballot. The measure is based on American Legislative Exchange Council’s model Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.
If enacted, Oklahoma will follow the lead of Virginia, Idaho, and Arizona in challenging President Barack Obama’s signature legislation on the basis of state law, but with a twist: the Virginia challenge to the health care bill is based on a state statute, while Oklahoma would up the ante with a constitutional amendment.
Voters in Florida and Arizona will also go to the polls in November to vote on constitutional amendments opting their states out of the national health care law.
“This constitutional amendment will provide Oklahomans with a powerful legal protection against the federal government’s attempt to insert itself into everyday decisions that affect their finances and health,” said Rep. Mike Thompson (R-Oklahoma City), the measure’s sponsor in the House.
He said that legislators were “adamant” that Oklahomans have an opportunity to reject a federal takeover of their health care.
“States have the authority to protect the liberty of their citizens,” Thompson said. “Clearly a close, functional relationship between doctors and their patients is preferable to one dictated by the federal government.”
Gov. Henry’s office condemned the passage of SJR 59, saying that the resolution would only drive Oklahoma into a futile lawsuit with the federal government that would be ruled unconstitutional for conflicting with federal law.
Twenty states are already suing the federal government for constitutional overreach in enacting President Obama’s health care reform.
The attorneys general of Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Utah, Alabama, Washington, Colorado, Michigan, South Dakota, Idaho, Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Mississippi, and Arizona have filed a joint lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Virginia is engaged in a separate lawsuit filed with the federal district court in Richmond, where the Justice Department has filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case.
In all cases, the states assert that the federal mandate on individuals carrying health insurance or pay penalties, violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the US Constitution. They also invoke the Tenth Amendment reserving to states all powers not delegated to the federal government.
...Bravo, Oklahoma!!!
...Time to form a more perfect union...
a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit “forced participation in a health care system,”
Medicaid/Medicare Tax ...
Ohhhh, right! Fallin it is. savedbygrace posted the name upthread and I didn’t recognize it as a name. I thought maybe it was a reference to odingacare fallin, as in falling — and it can’t get up. ;^) I’ll take a “duh” for that.
If they are reading the mood of the country in the tea leaves they'll kill this abomination before all hell breaks loose.
...I hope you jest. 2/3rds of the states to amend? 2/3rd of the states to unite? Only 34 to form a new union. Better yet, let all the despots in, then build a Great Wall, take the Constitution and start a “New World Republic”...
...Whatcha say about that comrade???
The article was still there when I clicked on it. BTW, and if you know, is it supposed to be a communication from Mark Warner to the addressees??? Or is he also one of the addressees? Still in all I would want some additional sources to get very excited about it. I know, not always available...
I thought OK was a conservative state. How did they end up with a RAT Gov?
Check with Freeper patriot08. He seems to be pretty informed about the article and its disappearance.
As near as I can determine, neither of which are "mandatory", except that the States have been brow beaten into participating in Medicaid. The Medicare "tax" is all but a lost cause since the federales have almost unlimited powers to tax. Not sure if they can or do force oldsters to join the healthcare "program" once reaching 65. But since we've all been saddled with the taxes for most of our working lives, whaddaya gonna do when you hit 65?
Hard to say but I understand overall, and in his more lucid moments, he would stack up pretty well against many Northeast Pubbies. I hate to admit it but I have a Dim for a State representative. Old school and VERY conservative. Think Zell Miller Dim. Can't say if OK's gov Henry qualifies.
He went to OU... he was part of the machine. People are idiots. They saw OU and voted.
Pretty nutty too.
You can take it to the bank that Oklahoma voters will nullify Fed Health Care Law in November. However Red Oklahoma was in 2008, it is even more red now.
Agree. Just how big of a message will the OK voters send DC? Would 70% be out of the reach?
However Red Oklahoma was in 2008, it is even more red now.
I don't doubt that either. Little Sister to our north is walking the walk. Gettin late here in these Piney Woods; gotta hit the sack.
Brogdon has my vote! DUh-bama’s sock puppet Governor should be used to the veto override by now and will see many other of his vetos get tossed.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1721/show
that would take another $150-250 a month from pay checks - may start out voluntary - toe in the door?
>>In all cases, the states assert that the federal mandate on individuals carrying health insurance or pay penalties, violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the US Constitution. They also invoke the Tenth Amendment reserving to states all powers not delegated to the federal government.
Article I, Section 2 sounds like a weak argument, since it defines reprention by population and direct taxation by population (i.e. everybody).
Article I, Section 9 is a stronger argument, since it says no bills of attainder (i.e. bills that have fines and or prison) and that have a negative impact on a person or group (i.e. seniors).
Of course, the Tenth Amendment is the strongest argument. The delegated powers do NOT include health care - and several other usurpations - and as such that power is reserved to the people.
Now here is the $64,000 question - if the federal government prevails and the SC rules that the act IS constitutional, what are the options left? For IF it is ruled constitutional, the states have ZERO powers, save those the federal government grants to the states, and the contract (i.e. the Constitution) between the states and a federal government is broken.
And the $64 trillion question - should the contract be broken, can states “secede” or is it even necessary? The states had better be ready for it.
As a practical matter, all a state can refuse to do is to set up a state run health care exchange, or set up one with substantially different rules from those mandated by federal law, in either case the federal government is empowered to set up a federally run exchange. There is nothing such states can do to prevent the establishment of the federally run exchange or to prevent individuals from participating in it if they wish, so this kind of symbolic resistance will likely have the effect of:
1) *Increasing* federal participation in health-care funding and rule-making.
2) Reducing the cost control effectiveness in states which set up simultaneous state and federal exchange systems as a split membership will reduce bargaining power of each.
IMO one thing doesn’t get enough attention in most discussions here is that while “Health Care Reform” is politically unpopular, some individual provisions of the bill - including some of the most politically and economically significant - poll at 70% or higher popularity, so it’s unrealistic to suppose that we are ever going to return to the system as it existed prior to passage of the bill - that ship has sailed.
” and the contract (i.e. the Constitution) between the states and a federal government is broken.”
The federal government is a creation of the states. The states can call for a convention to abolish the federal government. Kind of like 1787 when the states met to ratify the Constitution to create the Republic, but this time the vote would be on whether or not to dissolve the contract. On the surface it looks scary and messy, but I’m sure there are smart people to figure it out while preserving our liberties.
There aren’t many choices left - seccession, abolition or civil war. It’s impossible for two groups to live together when one group favors liberty and the other slavery.
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.