Party-line vote in Idaho for ‘nullification’ bill

The Spokesman-Review ^ | January 26, 2011 | Betsy Z. Russell

[Idabilly]

BOISE - On a straight party-line vote, with all 15 Republicans on the committee voting in favor and all four Democrats voting against, the House State Affairs Committee voted this morning to introduce legislation seeking to “nullify” the federal health care reform bill.

Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, told the panel, “The federal health care laws recently passed by the U.S. Congress have invaded the traditional sovereign powers of the state. This bill declares that this intrusion by the federal government is … null and void.”

Committee members had lots of questions for Barbieri. “Are you … aware that no court in the history of the United States has ever upheld a state effort to nullify a federal law?” Rep. Elfreda Higgins, D-Garden City, asked Barbieri. He responded, “I do believe no federal court has done that. The difficulty is that the federal courts are an arm of the federal government, so it would be very difficult to imagine an arm of the federal government ruling against itself.”

[jessduntno]

“Don’t look for confines in the Constitution. It’s full of holes.”

Keep your hat on. For the same reason.

[Defend Liberty]

The answer, of course, is that the federal judiciary decides what powers are or are not delegated to the US. The states don't get to decide.

Wrong. The judiciary is not the final authority on the Constitution. If they were the final authority then they could change the Constitution at their whim, thereby giving them unlimited powers which is anathema to the limited government principles the founding fathers instilled in the Constitution. It would negate the Bill Of Rights as the people would have no powers since the judiciary would have unlimited powers. The answer is the states have any powers not delegated to the "United States" per the 10th Amendment.

You can't have some states deciding one way, and other states another way. That's not how the Constitution lays it out.

The states can decide in any manner they choose so long as it doesn't interfere with the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 or powers in Article 1 Section 10.

You've never heard of implied powers? You should read up on it and disabuse yourself of this fantasy that the Constitution delegates expressed powers only. Would that it were so!

Implied powers is socialist spin for unlimited powers. If the founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the intent of granting Congress unlimited powers then there would have not been any need to list specific powers in Article 1 Section 8 since Congress would have all powers. Nor would they have written The Bill of Rights since unlimited powers would have negated any powers to the people.

You really need to take your socialist BS to a website where the people actually by your unlimited power cr*p.

[Idabilly]

Wrong. The judiciary is not the final authority on the Constitution. If they were the final authority then they could change the Constitution at their whim, thereby giving them unlimited powers which is anathema to the limited government principles the founding fathers instilled in the Constitution. It would negate the Bill Of Rights as the people would have no powers since the judiciary would have unlimited powers. The answer is the states have any powers not delegated to the "United States" per the 10th Amendment.

Excellent post, Defend Liberty!

There was no way the States would have ratified the Constitution without certain guarantees, and the Bill of Rights. What Mr. Huck doesn't understand, despite his admiration for the anti-Federalist, is that the Constitution was meant to lay out and define Federal authority; the power given to it by the people acting threw their respected States. When I say "State," I understand it to be "the people". Since it was understood that the people speak as their State, and the Federal Government was just that. . . Federal, not National. As James Madison said a great many times, the 10th Amendment is what it is:

"[The Constitution] was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the [10th] amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, ‘that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[ForGod'sSake]

Puck, I’m haven’t a clue what it is you’re trying to accomplish with your incessant negative bile. If you think for a minute we will reclaim all our rights in one fell swoop, you’re an idiot. Would you care to enlighten the class with your suggestions?

[dixiechick2000]

“And that’s a semantic game. It’s a stimulus that anticipates a specific response. That process is what is important and not what it’s called.”

Absolutely right! God love those who buck the system, and dare the feds to come down on them!

I’m becoming more strident with my conservative libertarian leanings with every word that comes out of Obama’s mouth.

Thank you so much for your posts, Billthedrill.

“IMHO, of course.”

Mine, too. ;o)

Thank you for the ping, FGS!

[ForGod'sSake]

You’re welcome. And yeah, Billthedrill is an astute observer.

[mstar]

Ida B and FGS thank you both for an another encouraging ping.

A FReeper on the Texas/EPA thread made a comment, IMO that may determine the outcome of our new states rights battle. . .

what chance does a broke federal government have against a state with plenty of cash and refuses to share by way of taxes. Like Southern Sunshine posted earlier, the south during The War of Northern Aggression, got hungry.

We ain't hungry now and don't plan to be.

[ForGod'sSake]

what chance does a broke federal government have against a state with plenty of cash...

The potential problem as I see it is the feral government OWNS the printing presses(more accurately the FED's electronic accounting entries, creating "Money For Nothing") so technically they can never be broke IMHO(others with more knowledge may want to contribute). The money may be worthless but what do they care. They can pay off their debts with what will essentially be the equivalent Monopoly money. The states on the other hand will be stuck with cash on hand that will be worth less with each passing day.

[mstar]

The potential problem as I see it is the feral government OWNS the printing presses(more accurately the FED's electronic accounting entries, creating "Money For Nothing") so technically they can never be broke IMHO. The money may be worthless but what do they care

Initially yes. . . but don't you think this will eventually catch up with them esp as the productive citizens bolt for areas more business friendly. Of course this would leave the federal government in a situation similar to that of post WW1 Germany and the rise of their savior, Hitler.

others with more knowledge may want to contribute

absolutely

[ForGod'sSake]

Of course this would leave the federal government in a situation similar to that of post WW1 Germany and the rise of their savior, Hitler.

I'm sure students of history could shed light on some scenarios on just where Monopoly money may take us; NONE of them are good I suspect. If odinga and his fellow travelers aren't stopped, and soon, we will witness the collapse of what arguably was the greatest culture ever to exist on God's green earth.

[dixiechick2000]

mstar, FGS is right...the critical component is the fact that the states don’t have their own printing presses.

No matter how much money, say, Texas has, it won’t matter in the long run. The fed printing presses will make that money more worthless every day.

[Huck]

Just trying to get the facts on the table. I don't see the truth as negative. It is what it is. But I actually agree with you that from your perspective, and probably that of many others, the result is negative bile.

I'm going to try to cut down on my posts. This forum is SO useful not just as a place to spout opinion, but as a place to follow the news, I don't want to give it up completely. But I'll try to keep my ravings to myself.

[Huck]

And that’s a semantic game. It’s a stimulus that anticipates a specific response. That process is what is important and not what it’s called. IMHO, of course.

Bill, I disagree. Nullification is false, and to me it promotes a misunderstanding of the Constitution to legitimize it.

[mstar]

mstar, FGS is right...the critical component is the fact that the states don’t have their own printing presses. No matter how much money, say, Texas has, it won’t matter in the long run. The fed printing presses will make that money more worthless every day.


Hey Ms Dixie.

I was thinking in the terms of actual secession leading to a separate monetary system. If this happened and Federal government continues spending/printing non existing money, hyperinflation, although not as severe as that of the post WW1 Weimar Republic, could happen.

I am certainly no expert. . . just thinking about it all :)

From an interesting article written by Chuck(???) on the "HubPages"

"Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the government collapsed, the Kaiser (king) was forced to abdicate and a left of center, socialist style government was established. The economy and the country were in shambles following the loss of the war and the new government of, what historians refer to as the Weimar Republic, attempted to work its way out of the mess by printing money. When the initial injections of newly printed money failed to work, the government's response was more of the same. The result was an inflation that was so bad that prices were literally increasing by the minute. The inflation was such that the German mark, which could be exchanged for U.S. dollars in 1914 at the rate of approximately 4 marks to the dollar had, by 1923 reached the point where the exchange rate was approaching 1 trillion marks to the dollar. While the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic is an extreme case, other countries have experienced very severe inflation during the twentieth century as well. Argentina and Israel both experienced annual inflation rates of 1,000% or more during the middle of the century, and most developed nations, including the United States (during the Carter Administration the rate exceeded 20% in the U.S.) have experienced double digit inflation during the twentieth century."

[ForGod'sSake]

Just trying to get the facts on the table.

The facts as I see 'em are these:

Our Constitution is a piece of paper; a road map, that if followed will keep us on the right path.

Our Constitution, as good as it is, has ZERO enforcement power in and of itself.

Our Founders left to the people and the states EVERY power not specifically delegated to the feral government; the driver if you will. "We're Greyhound; leave the driving to us" might be an appropriate analogy.

And away they went and things went swimmingly; for a time. But, along the way some of the people and the states noticed the driver had ditched the road map and gotten off on some back roads. A small group of states got together and decided to challenge the driver on his change in direction only to be bloodied pretty badly by the driver who it turns out was a bear of a man who didn't like to be challenged because he knew best how to get where he wanted to go. After some reflection the driver in his newfound benevolence decided on a different tack and for many more miles the states, via bribery and intimidation, and the people, who began receiving candy and other goodies cowered in their seats for fear of losing favor with the driver.

It also turns out the driver was suicidal and had no intentions of getting the people and the states to their destination of liberty and freedom for all. He was headed for a cliff. The people and the states finally awoke to their predicament. What to do???

The people and the states at any time could have banded together to overpower and beat the surly but badly outnumbered driver to a fare-the-well. Why they didn't may be a question that will ring for many years to come. What now?

[windsorknot]

Man, I miss Idaho.

Me, too. I lived there years ago...such a beautiful state.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks for the excellent insights ladies. Got grandkids on the way so I’ve gotta run prepare for the impending storm. ;^)

[Billthedrill]

Oh, I know your secret, my FRiend - you love the Constitution even while you rail against it. Go ahead and deny it. ;-)

[dixiechick2000]

“I am certainly no expert. . . just thinking about it all :)”

I’m certainly no expert either. lol

I heard an interesting proposition today. Let those states who are in need of a bailout go bankrupt...Chapter 9, I believe...and then let them not be states anymore, but be territories.

We are heading into uncharted waters, that’s for sure!

[dixiechick2000]

You have grandkids on the way? Bless your heart, and congratulations! ;o)

I have them already, and am very concerned about their future.