Posted on 02/16/2011 2:11:53 PM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
—John C. Calhoun rides again—?
“all the “authorities” claim that nullification is unconstitutional, obstructive, idiotic, moot.”
Not this nullification. Obamacare has already been declared unconstitutional.
1 down, 49 to go!
Smiling. Who says the 10th Amendment is a dead letter?
“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”
Bravo! Taking the lead. Keep it up.
RE: NULLIFICATION
This is going to be an interesting development because as I remember US History, State Nullification of Federal Law has not worked in the past.
If my memory serves me right, the idea that a US State has the right to nullify or invalidate any federal law that they deem unconstitutional was one of the precursors of the Civil War.
The view that the sovereign states formed the United States and not vice versa, where creators of this union hold final authority regarding the limits of the power of central government, is as old as the constitution itself.
But I believe, if memory serves me right, state efforts in the past to nullify Federal laws have NOT BEEN LEGALLY UPHELD. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is SUPERIOR to STATE LAW and Federal law TRUMPS State law in the event of a conflict.
Consider this :
In the 1950s , Nullification and the related doctrine of interposition surfaced in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which decided that segregated schools were illegal.
At least ten southern states passed various measures preserving segregated schools and refusing to follow the Brown decision.
The advocates of these measures argued that the Brown decision was unconstitutional and that the states had the inherent power to prevent that decision from being enforced within their borders.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this idea in the case of Cooper v. Aaron, finding that the state governments had no power to nullify the Brown decision.
The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision and its implementation “can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation.”
RESULT : Federal Law wins, States lose.
Now, let’s talk about 2011 — WHAT IF for some reason, Justice Anthony Kennedy woke up on the wrong side of the bed as Obamacare went to the SCOTUS and sided with the left wing of the court, declaring it CONSTITUTIONAL?
What can states like Idaho do about it given the past history of nullification failures?
I hope nobody is talking secession ( as the states did during Lincoln’s time ) because we all know how that turned out....(SHUDDER).
I hear you.
That’s what’s particularly amusing about the law professors et al. sneering at the legislators for passing an “unconstitutional” nullification.
The damn health care law itself is at death’s doorstep already.
wow - this is BIG FREAKIN’ NEWS!
The state doesn’t send money to the Feds...you and I do...
I wonder how FReepers would react if, say, California nullified the federal partial-birth abortion ban (which was, like Obamacare, passed under the Interstate Commerce clause).
He can, I suppose, send armed Federal marshals in to force us all to buy health insurance, secure in the knowledge that we'll be laughing too hard to draw a decent bead on 'em. But I think not. If there are any potato subsidies I suppose we'll stand to lose them. The humanity!
I believe the SCOTUS has ruled that Federal Law supersedes states rights.
However, even if this is true a couple things come into play. How do the Feds force a State to implement the law, especially if numerous States start passing the same nullification. Also, it opens the door for the threat of secession if the Fed pushes too hard disregarding the limitations on it in the Constitution.
This should tee up a nice, ripe, constitutional issue for the SCOTUS.
This apparently has not been passed by the Idaho Senate nor signed by their governor.
There are a lot of bills that pass one house of a legislature only to die in the other house or be vetoed.
This is not a done deal, and there’s no reason to celebrate even if it does become law. Ultimately, nullification has been tried several times and failed. I see it as a waste of time.
The war of northern aggression established where the states stand in the pecking order, and it’s pretty darn low.
It would destroy the constitutionality of Roe. :)
We’d go back to the old standard in the 50’s where certain states permitted abortion, but most did not.
RE: Not this nullification. Obamacare has already been declared unconstitutional.
There’s still one hill to climb and ONE MAN who will most probably decide the issue ( His initials are AK ).
WHAT IF for some reason, Justice Anthony Kennedy woke up on the wrong side of the bed as Obamacare went to the SCOTUS and sided with the left wing of the court, declaring it CONSTITUTIONAL?
What can states like Idaho do about it given the past history of state nullification failures? (e.g. The Supreme Court in the case, Cooper v. Aaron, finding that the state governments had no power to nullify the Brown vs Board of Education decision, where in the 1950’s, at least ten southern states passed various measures preserving segregated schools and refusing to follow the Brown decision).
I hope nobody is talking secession ( as the states did during President Lincoln’s time ) because we all know how that turned out....(SHUDDER).
I miss you, Idaho.
I would love it. The issue should be fought in the state legislatures. How many Rats would be elected locally if they were held accountable for this type of law instead of passing it off to lifetime appointed federal judges?
I think that was settled about 145 years ago.
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.