(Oklahoma) Lawmakers File "Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act"

OKLAHOMA CITY - The voters of Oklahoma will have the opportunity to preserve the existing health care system in Oklahoma under legislation sought by three state legislators.

State Reps. Mike Ritze and Mike Reynolds and state Sen. Randy Brogdon announced today that they will file legislation enacting the "Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act," allowing voters to preserve the existing healthcare system in Oklahoma regardless of congressional action at the federal level.

The legislation will allow a vote of the people to opt out of the proposed federal system.

"It's clear the overwhelming majority of Americans want the current doctor-patient relationship preserved instead of having Washington bureaucrats dictate medical decisions," said Ritze, a Broken Arrow Republican who is also a board-certified family practice physician and surgeon. "The proposals under consideration in Congress are likely to result in reduced access to a family doctor, rationing of services, or even outright denial of care if a pencil-pusher decides it is not a 'best practice.' My legislation would give the voters the ability to protect and preserve their existing health care coverage."

"The United States' health care system is the envy of the world and the people of Oklahoma should have the opportunity to maintain the top-notch care they have received while also avoiding the onerous burdens the proposed federal law would impose on working families," said Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City.

"The proposed legislation in Washington is a massive overstepping of the bounds placed on Congress by our U.S. Constitution," said Brogdon, R-Owasso. "It is time that we the people tell Congress enough is enough - and now Oklahomans will have the opportunity to do so."

Modeled on an Arizona proposal, Ritze and Reynolds' legislation would place language on the ballot to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to declare what types of health care systems could lawfully exist in the state.

Prohibit any law or rule from directly or indirectly compelling any person or employer to participate in any health care system; Allow any person or employer to pay directly for lawful health care services without paying any penalties or fines; Permit a health care provider to provide directly purchased lawful health services without paying any penalties or fines; and Stipulate that subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options, the purchase or sale of private health insurance will not be prohibited. The amendment would not change what health care services a provider is required to perform or what health care services are permitted by law.

"This is an issue that could have serious consequences for all citizens and it is only right to allow voters a direct role in the outcome of this debate," Ritze said.

"I was not surprised that the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate kept the specific language of their bill from the public and most of their members," Reynolds said. "In comparison, the language of our "Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act" will be fully disclosed as soon as it is filed, probably later this afternoon. We welcome any discussion."

But Huck, there are powers granted the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.

That's right. Congress has the power to make laws. The president has the power to sign or veto. And the Court gets to decide what the Constitution means, with no appeal.

Therefore things not listed, are to remain with the states.

That's not how it's gone down. As early as the Washington administration, the "implied powers" doctrine was employed (by Hamilton, of course) to justify the creation of a national bank. There is no power listed that says "the power to create a bank." But Hamilton argued that it was an implied power. Justice Marshall later codified the same argument into law. Any power that is directed towards a "legitimate end" of the government is also a delegated power.

Check out Antifederalist 32:

This constitution considers the people of the several states as one body corporate, and is intended as an original compact; it will therefore dissolve all contracts which may be inconsistent with it. This not only results from its nature, but is expressly declared in the 6th article of it. The design of the constitution is expressed in the preamble, to be, "in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." These are the ends this government is to accomplish, and for which it is invested with certain powers; among these is the power "to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." It is a rule in construing a law to consider the objects the legislature had in view in passing it, and to give it such an explanation as to promote their intention. The same rule will apply in explaining a constitution. The great objects then are declared in this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the common welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion. No terms can be found more indefinite than these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws are proper and necessary for the purpose. It may be said, that this way of explaining the constitution, is torturing and making it speak what it never intended. This is far from my intention, and I shall not even insist upon this implied power, but join issue with those who say we are to collect the idea of the powers given from the express words of the clauses granting them...
...And in the last paragraph of the same section there is an express authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power. It is therefore evident, that the legislature under this constitution may pass any law which they may think proper. It is true the 9th section restrains their power with respect to certain subjects. But these restrictions are very limited, some of them improper, some unimportant, and others not easily understood, as I shall hereafter show. It has been urged that the meaning I give to this part of the constitution is not the true one, that the intent of it is to confer on the legislature the power to lay and collect taxes, etc., in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare. To this I would reply, that the meaning and intent of the constitution is to be collected from the words of it, and I submit to the public, whether the construction I have given it is not the most natural and easy. ..
The great and only security the people can have against oppression from this kind of taxes, must rest in their representatives. If they are sufficiently numerous to be well informed of the circumstances, . . . and have a proper regard for the people, they will be secure. The general legislature, as I have shown in a former paper, will not be thus qualified,' and therefore, on this account, ought not to exercise the power of direct taxation. If the power of laying imposts will not be sufficient, some other specific mode of raising a revenue should have been assigned the general government; many may be suggested in which their power may be accurately defined and limited, and it would be much better to give them authority to lay and collect a duty on exports, not to exceed a certain rate per cent, than to have surrendered every kind of resource that the country has, to the complete abolition of the state governments, and which will introduce such an infinite number of laws and ordinances, fines and penalties, courts, and judges, collectors, and excisemen, that when a man can number them, he may enumerate the stars of Heaven.

A very clear extrapolation of exactly how the Constitution would in fact be construed.

but I don’t really agree that the tenth is toothless. It’s not been enforced, respected or whatever, that’s for sure.

Who is going to enforce it? The states? The Constitution declares itself supreme, the laws of the states notwithstanding. The Constitution reserves for itself, through the SCOTUS, the last word on the meaning of the Constitution. At best, the 10th amendment is a statement of the right to rebel, but the Constutition gives the national government the power to suppress such rebellions. If the national government wants more power, they take it. Who enforces the 10th amendment under the Constitution? The inmates hold the key to the cell.

The states could, theoretically, call a convention. That's in the Constitution. The truth is, though, that the national government--and political parties--use their muscle, their money, and their influence to ensure that this doesn't happen. The state governments are run by party hacks. They are agents of the national government.

I've never bought the argument that the mode of election of Senators makes any significant difference. Consider the following, from Antifederalist 39, on that very subject. Those who lived in a time of actual state sovereignty, and who placed high value upon it, were not impressed by the original mode of election. For your consideration, coming from someone who lived under an actual confederacy:

The State legislatures do not choose senators by legislative or sovereign authority, but by a power of ministerial agency as mere electors or boards of appointment. They have no power to direct the senators how or what duties they shall perform; they have neither power to censure the senators, nor to supersede them for misconduct. It is not the power of choosing to office merely that designates sovereignty, or else corporations who appoint their own officers and make their own by-laws, or the heads of department who choose the officers under them, such as commanders of armies, etc., may be called sovereigns, because they can name men to office whom they cannot dismiss therefrom. The exercise of sovereignty does not consist in choosing masters, such as the senators would be, who, when chosen, would be beyond control, but in the power of dismissing, impeaching, or the like, those to whom authority is delegated. The power of instructing or superseding of delegates to Congress under the existing confederation has never been complained of, although the necessary rotation of members of Congress has often been censured for restraining the state sovereignties too much in the objects of their choice. As well may the electors who are to vote for the president under the new constitution, be said to be vested with the sovereignty, as the State legislatures in the act of choosing senators. The senators are not even dependent on the States for their wages, but in conjunction with the federal representatives establish their own wages. The senators do not vote by States, but as individuals. The representatives also vote as individuals, representing people in a consolidated or national government; they judge upon their own elections, and, with the Senate, have the power of regulating elections in time, place and manner, which is in other words to say, that they have the power of elections absolutely vested in them.
The State legislatures do not choose senators by legislative or sovereign authority, but by a power of ministerial agency as mere electors or boards of appointment. They have no power to direct the senators how or what duties they shall perform; they have neither power to censure the senators, nor to supersede them for misconduct. It is not the power of choosing to office merely that designates sovereignty, or else corporations who appoint their own officers and make their own by-laws, or the heads of department who choose the officers under them, such as commanders of armies, etc., may be called sovereigns, because they can name men to office whom they cannot dismiss therefrom. The exercise of sovereignty does not consist in choosing masters, such as the senators would be, who, when chosen, would be beyond control, but in the power of dismissing, impeaching, or the like, those to whom authority is delegated. The power of instructing or superseding of delegates to Congress under the existing confederation has never been complained of, although the necessary rotation of members of Congress has often been censured for restraining the state sovereignties too much in the objects of their choice. As well may the electors who are to vote for the president under the new constitution, be said to be vested with the sovereignty, as the State legislatures in the act of choosing senators. The senators are not even dependent on the States for their wages, but in conjunction with the federal representatives establish their own wages. The senators do not vote by States, but as individuals. The representatives also vote as individuals, representing people in a consolidated or national government; they judge upon their own elections, and, with the Senate, have the power of regulating elections in time, place and manner, which is in other words to say, that they have the power of elections absolutely vested in them.

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.