First in the Nation: Idaho House Passes Health Care Nullification

Tenth Amendment Center ^ | 02-16-2011 | Michael Boldin

[RepublicnotaDemocracy]

In an historic vote in the Idaho House of Representatives, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act (originally authored by the Tenth Amendment Center) passed by a vote of 49-20.

House Bill 117 states:

"The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services free from the imposition of penalties, or the threat thereof, by the federal government of the United States of America relating thereto"

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."

House Bill 117 expressly includes this principle

[schwingdoc]

This is interesting as a doc in WA state.
I wonder if their docs and hospitals are still working on the largest piece of legislation to actually hit the docs?

Perhpas unknown to many readers here.....2 words in the original Obamacare billl....”Meaningful Use” ...turned into 800+ pages of rules regulations and penalties regarding implementing and expanding electronic medical records (including having our current proprietal system mandated to communicate with outside systems fo rthe purpose of a real national databank and electronic chart. Thats right....right now most of your doctors and hospitals are working feverishly on “Meaningful Use” and your chart will soon be visible to some bureaucrat in DC.)

So a few months after Obamacare passed, we were handed an 800+ page document called “Meaningful Use” - which spells out the rules, regulations and penalties of how we set up and data mine our EMR. We actually had to develop an entire new committee to deal with this. It is pervasive, intrusive and encompassing.

Back to my original question.....I wonder if the Idaho docs are making the consious decision to start to ignore meaningful use. If they do, and Obamacare eventually somehow suceeds in getting through SCOTUS, then they are seriously screwed.

People you may not know it, but docs are already working hard on Obamacare as we speak. And Im in WA state - one of the states involved in the FL lawsuit in which the judge found the law unconstitutional.
Its weird, I’m working on federal business that my state says is unconstitutional.

[arrogantsob]

Madison’s understanding of the Constitution went off the tracks when he fell under the influence of Jefferson who didn’t seem to understand it at all. He returned to his glory later when he called “foul” on secessionist talk which his earlier nullification theories helped generate.

Constitutionality of laws is finally determined in the Supreme Court and that concept was established even before the constitution. The Hylton case settled it after the constitution. Legislatures have no say on the constitutionality of federal legislation. Nor is it decided by your opinion nor mine that is the way the system is set up.

Should the Court decide a law is unconstitutional and the administration decides to implement it anyway then state legislatures can be the arm of the people’s discontent. That is a different matter from nullification of laws prior to a final court decision.

[ForGod'sSake]

Since I haven't seen your name on these “statesrights” threads before I can only assume you are new to the discussion. What you are parroting is useless tripe that has been sliced and diced on these threads for at least two years. Based on what I've seen so far I seriously doubt you could anything to the discussion that hasn't been covered many times already. You're arguments are old hat and take on the tenor or a troll. JMO of course.

[ForGod'sSake]

schwingdoc please accept my apologies. I haven't a clue how my earlier response ended up being posted as a reply to your post. It was intended for the poster living up to his namesake and I'll repost it to him/her/it now:

Since I haven't seen your name on these “statesrights” threads before I can only assume you are new to the discussion. What you are parroting is useless tripe that has been sliced and diced on these threads for at least two years. Based on what I've seen so far I seriously doubt you could anything to the discussion that hasn't been covered many times already. You're arguments are old hat and take on the tenor of a troll. JMO of course.

schwingdoc can stop scratching your head now. Once again, sorry.

[ForGod'sSake]

Allow me make a bona fide reply to your post. It’s JMO but I believe the donks and odinga planned this stealthy attack on our health care industy from the gitgo. That is, it would implement or have implemented some “hooks” early on like 26 year olds on parents policies, coverage for preexisting conditions, etc AND force infrastructure to be put in place. After a year or two of this there would be a hue and cry from those gaining coverage and from those having spent MILLION$ in many cases on set up costs for money down the rabbit hole IF the opposition attempted repeal or defunding. Insidious bass turds they are.

[dixiechick2000]

This is awesome news! Thank you, both, so much for the post and ping! Really...thank you.

I might not have seen this were it not for the post and ping!

[tina07]

YAY! I like how it’s been declared unconstitutional and Obozo is still hiring over 1,000 IRS idiots for it! 81 of those will cost 11,000,000 to enforce the tanning tax, WTF!!!

WE’RE BROKE YOU MORONS!!!!!!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

6000% tax increase in potatoes forthcoming.

Maine makes a pretty good 'tater.

[dblup]

Just noticed the link you put up.

Thank you.

[babygene]

“6000% tax increase in potatoes forthcoming.”

Did you know that 90% of the Idaho potatoes are grown under contract to McDonalds?

[Loud Mime]

Bump

[cranked]

Idaho won’t be the last.....

[TexasPatriot1]

So, there will be an increase in the happy meal?
“I need a happy meal, fries, and a sprite to drink.”

“That will be $95.75 please.”

[Dead Corpse]

What a wonderful dream come true that would be....

[Idabilly]

Constitutionality of laws is finally determined in the Supreme Court and that concept was established even before the constitution. The Hylton case settled it after the constitution. Legislatures have no say on the constitutionality of federal legislation. Nor is it decided by your opinion nor mine that is the way the system is set up.

I will first say, you should thank your maker (whomever that may be,) I'm not on the high Court or the only justice sitting on the it. In my opinion, the federal government has been operating outside the Constitution for a great many years. I would therefore make an "activist ruling" that they, themselves, are unconstitutional.

My ruling would be as follows: All laws found within United States code that violate the Natural rights of man are hereby unconstitutional. These God Given rights can located in what is known as the Bill of Rights; or as I refer to it as, the list of Shall not. This list of "shall not" was a permanent restriction upon the general government placed on them by the people acting threw their respective States.

Furthermore, the general government is one of enumerated authority. This authority that they so carelessly toss around is one by gift, it is in trust. The collective governments (Federal, State, local) are all subordinate to the people. Please see (Amendment IX):The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Hasn't the general government catered to their lust for power by blatantly ignoring the fact they are a mere agent. Their authority is in trust and sworn duty is to defend the Constitution. This would also be applicable to their own colleagues. By choosing to turn a blind eye to their own ignorance, the people have allowed the general government to turn Amendment IX on it's head. Not to mention the whole Constitution itself.

What is to transpire when the greatest threat to American freedoms is the United States Government? You say the Courts will defend our rights. I disagree. If the last two nominees are any judge, the only object they intend on protecting is in fact one of the courts biggest goofs; Roe v. Wade. When someone makes such a statement like "the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitution issues," which is a direct result of being blinded by years of propaganda. Moreover, when four justices fall all over themselves twisting "shall not be infringed" into "whatever is reasonable," you place your God Given Rights in their hands. I, therefore, must question your love for Freedom.

We here in Idaho can't force our way of life on the people of Massachusetts, but we sure can defend what we understand to be truth for our way of life. You say "we can't nullify federal law" I say it and it's supporters have nullified the Constitution for far to long and it's time that someone nullifies them!

Abel Upshur said it best in his book, The Federal government: Its true nature and character :

"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. "

[Lurking Libertarian]

There is no federal partial birth abortion ban.

Yes, there is.

[Bigun]

"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. "

Abel Upshur, Secretary of the Navy, 1841-43

[ForGod'sSake]

Excellent sendoff to the arrogant one. FR has become infested with feral government shills and bootlickers.

[Bigun]

Although the federal government can, in no possible view, be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was, in fact, created; yet as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it, to its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being in fact duties; it can possess no legitimate power, but such, as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty, prescribed and enjoined by the constitution. Its duties, then, become the exact measure of its powers; and wherever it exerts a power for any other purpose, than the performance of a duty prescribed by the constitution, it transgresses its proper limits, and violates the public trust. Its duties, being moreover imposed for the general benefit and security of the several states, in their politic character; and of the people, both in their sovereign, and individual capacity, if these objects be not obtained, the government will not answer the end of its creation: it is therefore bound to the several states, respectively, and to every citizen thereof, for the due execution of those duties. And the observance of this obligation is enforced, by the solemn sanction of an oath, from all who administer the government. The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defense, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common. It is the supreme law of the land, and as such binding upon the federal government; the several states; and finally upon all the citizens of the United States.... It can not be controlled, or altered without the express consent of the body politic of three fourths of the states in the union, or, of the people, of an equal number of the states. To prevent the necessity of an immediate appeal to the latter, a method is pointed out, by which amendments may be proposed and ratified by the concurrent act of two thirds of both houses of congress, and three fourths of the state legislatures: but if congress should neglect to propose amendments in this way, when they may be deemed necessary, the concurrent sense of two thirds of the state legislatures may enforce congress to call a convention, the amendments proposed by which, when ratified by the conventions of three fourths of the states, become valid, as a part of the constitution. In either mode, the assent of the body politic of the states, is necessary, either to complete, or to originate the measure.

“Their [the states] submission to its [the federal government's] operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent."

Both excerpted from:

BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE, TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. IN FIVE VOLUMES. WITH AN APPENDIX TO EACH VOLUME, CONTAINING SHORT TRACTS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS AS APPEARED NECESSARY TO FORM A CONNECTED VIEW OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, AS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL UNION. BY ST. GEORGE TUCKER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WILLIAM AND MARY, AND ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT IN VIRGINIA. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM YOUNG BIRCH, AND ABRAHAM SMALL, NO. 17, SOUTH SECOND-STREET. ROBERT CARR, PRINTER. 1803.

[arrogantsob]

No argument is being made by me that the ultimate authority on what our government can do rests with the People. However, it has been provided with constitutional means to have that influence exercised. Originally our government was established so that the state legislatures were actually represented in the Senate. However, the People were convinced that this was not democratic enough, amended the Constitution and now our Senators are elected like Reps. This was a big mistake.

Unfortunately, there is no credible belief that our government and People will not make mistakes, mistakes which could last for decades. Look at Dred Scott.

Many of us share your belief that the fedgov has become too powerful in too many areas. However, trying to negate it by an appeal to “Natural Law” is a fruitless endeavor since there is considerable dispute about what that means. Some claim we have a “right” to free health care. Some claimed we had a “right” to slavery.

Even the greatest advocates of Enumerated powers do not dispute that there are certain unenumerated powers associated with the sheer sovereignty of the nation. Hamilton’s magnificent Essay on the Constitutionality of the National Bank most clearly expostulates this concept.

Nor is there any realistic dispute that the history of this century shows that an extremely powerful national government is critical to our very survival. One with less powers would likely have succumbed to either Nazism or Communism. Nor should there be much dispute that it has taken to far more involvement in other areas than should be the case.

However, most of this I blame on the People for continuing to elect Democrats and falling for every sweet-talking scam artist who decides to enter politics. Or they just don’t pay any attention to significant issues until they are huge problems. Or they just don’t give a crap and don’t even vote.

The federal constitution is the creature of the People not the states. It was deliberately set up to be voted on by the People in convention in the states rather than state legislatures exactly so that it could not be truthfully claimed to be the “creature of the states”. If a state legislature were allowed to ratify then it could at a later date vote to de-ratify.

Back when Madison was more Hamiltonian than Hamilton he even proposed that the states be abolished and made into administrative units created by the general government. He also wrote to H during the NY ratification convention that once ratifying the states could not withdraw. Nor could they ratify “conditionally”.

Nullification is a bird of the same feather. Could Idaho have said “No, we are nullifying the Draft Law. Our boys are not going to fight Hitler”? Of course not.

Our government was set up with DIVIDED powers not as a monolith. So far it has worked pretty well in spite of various mistakes and problems. Court rulings have overturned legislative and executive decisions and they have generally been accepted and followed. Jefferson tried to make the Court subordinate to his ideology and failed. It is designed not to be political. But it requires people of integrity to make it so. If it ever gets to the point of being totally political then something will happen to our nation and it won’t be good.