Posted on 02/04/2011 2:29:24 PM PST by Libloather
Alaska Gov: Enacting Health Care Law May Violate Oath
Published February 04, 2011
Associated Press
JUNEAU, Alaska -- Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday he has asked his attorney general to advise him on whether implementing and enforcing the federal health care overhaul would put Parnell in violation of his oath of office.
A federal judge in Florida this week struck down the law as unconstitutional in a case joined by 26 states, including Alaska. A major point of contention is a provision requiring citizens to buy health insurance.
Parnell told reporters that he took an oath to support and defend the constitutions of the United States and Alaska. While the Republican governor concedes the issue is expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, he said he has a duty to uphold the law and wants Attorney General John J. Burns to advise on what that duty is after the Florida ruling.
"I'm caught between a federal government that says, 'You must pursue this, you must pursue this,' and I have the duty to uphold the rule of law," he said.
Parnell gave no timetable for receiving Burns' opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Another new idea.
Bump
Your oath comes before obeying illegal decrees from dictators. In fact, start arresting federal employees who try to carry out the illegal decrees.
IMHO...
After Judge Vinson’s ruling, he should be undoing any efforts thus far and not implementing anything else in the most effective way possible. Then if SCOTUS reverses and says to implement, then he’d have to start implementing again.
Unless it would place a severe enough burden on the State of Alaska - I would argue that then he should never have started implementing any of it and resisted in every way possible, i.e., thwarted the law, because he would have a sworn duty to citizens of Alaska. What if Federal law were to impose a $100,000 per year tax on every citizen of Alaska ? That law would have to be resisted, as it would economically destroy the State. If it’s possible to implement and it’s law, then he has to implement, even though it was costly and unpopular. In that case, the citizens only recourse would be the next Federal election cycle.
I don’t know how severe the burden is on them.
If this law is allowed to stand they could pass a law for you to jump off a cliff if you do not buy a Volt.
So, essentially it’s going to come down to whether Justice Kennedy wants Obamacare to be the “law of the land”, as it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion which way the other 8 justices will vote.
Until another court says otherwise, Mengelecare is unconstitutional, and therefore must not be implemeneted.
How long could it take to figure this out?
Which is why SCOTUS decisions are “final” in the short term, but not in the long-term. They’ve danced around issues like Fred Astaire over the years when you think about it.
The Governor is probably wishing he was a Democrat so he would not have to worry about the rule of law or any constitution! Democrats have it so easy.
Under USC title 18 section 641 it would be a felony to use any federal money to implement Obamacare given the fact that it was VOIDED by a federal judge for being unconstitutional.
http://marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/641.html
It's a free ride when the rules don't apply to you.
I'm waiting to see if he covers it again tonight. So far, so good.
Heh, that’s a great cartoon!
So, if this be the case, we can seek to impeach every state leader that attempts to enact Obamacare.
Thanks!!
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.