Posted on 07/01/2012 6:35:21 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
Despite Thursday’s controversial Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, states retain the right and authority to nullify the healthcare law, and the state of Missouri, among many others, is undertaking efforts to do just that. According to Missouri legislators, regardless of the High Court's ruling, Missouri voters will maintain the opportunity to vote for or against the so-called Affordable Healthcare Act in November. And Missouri is not the only state seeking to circumvent ObamaCare.
Yahoo News reports, “Several Republican governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law will be repealed or struck down by the Court.” Now that the court has issued a ruling in favor of the healthcare law, however, Jindal continues to contend that he will not be complying with the law.
States may also fall in line with Louisiana and Missouri and nullify ObamaCare. In the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers … a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
The Tenth Amendment Center indicates that the states have a number of methods by which they may nullify a law, including through state law, a statement amendment, or a voters' referendum.
The Nullification Project notes:
After today’s Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare," it remains clear that the people cannot rely on the high court to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution. In such cases, the Founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, have provided We the People and the States, a final check on the power of the three branches of the federal government: Nullification.”
And states should not fear the consequences of nullification. As per Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, Congress is not permitted to penalize states that refuse to implement ObamaCare. In the majority decision, Chief Justice Roberts stated, “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."
“For such a convention; you’d damn well better have a narrowly defined agenda. “
Definitely
“Otherwise we might end up with a several thousand page monstrosity much like the EU, or Obamacare.”
Unfortunately, we already have Obamacare and are well on our way to mimicking the disaster that is the EU.
“Be careful what you wish for; You might find ‘happy’ marriage enshrined in the document.”
With five progressive legislators sitting on the bench of the SCOTUS, I believe it will be there sooner or later anyway.
“1. Who would the delegates be, and how would they be selected?
2. Who would set the agenda?
3. What would the scope of the convention be?”
I don’t know. As stated by others, it would have to be tightly defined in order to restore and/or protect the constitution.
“Of course, maybe we could have two conventions: one for ‘us’, one for ‘them.’ That, by definition, is ‘civil war.’
(Which, ironically, may end up being our only option.)”
It seems that way sometimes.
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.