Health Care Freedom in Virginia

What Virginia needs to do is again secede from this reprobate Union. Virginia made sure that this right to leave was included when she first joined the Union. The Union overlooked this key point when Virginia was forced back into the Union at gunpoint.

Congress has always used the proverbial stick, or in the case of this administration, a baseball bat to get the states to submit. If you don't accept "X" then we'll cut off your funding for "Y." It's going to take considerable resolve on the part of the states to say enough is enough and make up for the Federal funding shortfall internally. Many states are in such dire financial shape that they can't possibly afford to do this. But then again, those are the "progressive" states who's representatives are driving this takeover mentality. I don't believe the Constitution prevents states from forming an alliance to pass a joint resolution against the Federal Government in support of the Tenth Amendment so long as they don't combine any of their state functions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding Pelosi's interpretations of the general welfare and Commerce clauses (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3 respectively) I'd say that she's just passing along gutter interpretations of these clauses without having researched them herself.

More specifically, Thomas Jefferson gave clear interpretations of these clauses when he and James Madison argued against Hamilton's national bank in the late 18th century. Here's Jefferson's comment about the Commerce clause.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

Note that Jefferson also volunteered his common-sense interpretation of the general welfare clause in the above linked document, not included here for brevity.

In my opinion, misguided Pelosi is foolishly (criminally?) basing her argument for the general welfare and Commerce clauses on the following. By 1942, constitutionally clueless Socialist FDR had managed to nominate eight pro-big federal government, outcome-driven justices to the USSC. And the goal of FDR's growing showcase of state-sovereignty ignoring justices was evidently the following. Their goal seemed to be to simply ignore pro-state sovereignty constitutional statutes like Article V and the 10th Amendment when they interpreted the general welfare and Commerce clauses in pivotal cases. Such cases include Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., both decided in 1942, I believe.

Simply put, if Pelosi and her likewise constitutionally-impaired cronies in the HoR were serious about their oaths to defend the Constitution, she would do the following. Given the Constitution's silence about public healthcare, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to regulate healthcare to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. So Article V requires Pelosi to rally two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution which would do the following if the states chose to ratify it. If the states were to ratify such an amendment, and they can always choose not to, then they would voluntarily surrender their constitutional authority to regulate and lay taxes in the name of healthcare to the federal government. In fact, several healthcare-related USSC case opinions clearly indicate that the states have never surrendered such power to the corrupt Congress.

Finally, getting back to the Virginia healthcare freedom act, why aren't we hearing the points that I just brought from Virginia's and other state's lawmakers?

While I'll agree that these state sovereignty acts are step in the right direction, my problem with the Virginia healthcare example is this. The USSC has already not only decided that the federal government cannot lay taxes for issues that are rightly controlled by the states, but has also singled out medical practice as a state power issue. Here are some relevant opinion excerpts.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html

Have you seen these Nancy?

With the nonexistent constitutional power of Congress to regulate and lay taxes in the name of healthcare in mind, here's an additional complication concerning the 17th Amendment which gives Congress power to tax people directly. Despite the saber-rattling of state lawmakers as evidenced by Virginia's proposed healthcare act, why don't Virginia lawmakers fight constitutionally illegal federal taxes collected through the federal government's abuse, IMO, of its 17th A. powers? In other words, the 17th A. has made it too easy for the corrupt Congress to lay constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes, healthcare taxes in this case.

And what's the point in telling Congress to jump in a lake if Virginians continue to pay constitutionally unauthorized federal healthcare taxes which pays for healthcare services that the Virginia healthcare act seems to be refusing?

What a mess! :^(

So what am I overlooking?

Finally, the following link should help people get up to speed as to how voters have shot themselves in the foot with big, corrupt federal government, IMO, as a consequence of the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199792

In relating to the link: www.theliberaloc.com/2009/11/05/john-campbell-opi...

"The 10th amendment does place one significant limit on Congress and the federal government: Congress cannot “commandeer” state officials to administer programs. It must get the consent of state officials who are asked, e.g., to run health programs for the poor or to help build highways. "

If the 10th amendment prohibits them from commandeering the states to do their bidding then how does it not also prevent them from commandeering the people to do their bidding, such as buying health insurance?

The limits the Federal employees in black robes place upon their employers are of course ridicules in their near meaninglessness and contradictions.

Thanks for sharing, Josh. We're trying our hand just north in Maryland.

Here's something I came across just recently that your post reminded me of:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffdec1....

Gotta love Virginia!

Cheers,

-Joshua
www.ForgottenMen.com