Pelosi Dispels Tenth Amendment “Myths”
06. Nov, 2009 Written by:
Josh Eboch 
9 Comments
This email from Nancy Pelosi to her supporters is the definition of Congressional doublespeak, rife with misleading statements like:
“Rather than creating a ‘government takeover of health care,’…America’s Affordable Health Choices Act…will expand enrollment in private insurance by an estimated 6 million Americans.”
Um, Nancy, mandating that all Americans buy a certain kind of insurance from certain government-approved providers is a “government takeover of health care.” It doesn’t matter if you then call those companies “private.”
That’s like saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are actually private entities because they are owned by individual shareholders.
Does she really think we are this stupid?
The answer is “Yes.”
But it gets much worse. Regarding any state that chooses to exercise its Tenth Amendment rights by nullifying ObamaCare:
A state is free to refuse the support and refuse to assist the federal government in administering the program, but Congress can authorize the federal government to administer the program on its own. Thus, Congress cannot force a state to administer a health insurance exchange, but it can authorize the federal government to administer such an exchange in any state that declines to do so. [Emphasis added]
So, even in states like Arizona, Kansas, Alaska, and others, where voters may choose to reject the federal takeover, Pelosi is claiming that Congress has the constitutional authority to “administer” the program anyway.
And where do you suppose they will get the money for that? No doubt at gunpoint from the very voters that have already rejected the program.
There is only one word to describe this kind of self-righteous arrogance: Chilling.
Josh is a proud "tenther", freelance writer, and activist originally from the Washington, D.C. area. Josh is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Author Info
This is a nonsensical situation. If the Federal Government thinks it can force states to accept Federal administration of its healthcare system, then EVERY state would be better off refusing to administer the system, because then the state won't have to pay for it!
State governments: nullify this whole 2,000-page can of expensive worms. You will be doing your citizens a favor.
I'm sure they'll still want to collect as much money as they can – especially since DC is flat broke!
But yes, state governments certainly need to take action and nullify!
I feel it is time to evoke the 10th amendment and start impeachment for the ones in DC who dishonor the Americian people.
They are implementing Tyrany. Constitution and the bill of rights the charge is:
"'High crimes and misdemeanors' In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act (as some would lead you to believe… at least our Founding Fathers did not believe so) and the Founders fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were… well… simply put… egregious… grossly incompetence… grossly negligence… outright distasteful… or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country, which is unabated." This means “with undiminished force, power, or vigor.” We need to fire them
I'm starting to wonder when it will be necessary to start arresting federal agents for violating their constitutional oath, and commuting a crime. Such as robbery, extortion, kidnapping, and breaking and entry.
Perhaps its time we start figuring out how to let the agents of the Federal government know that their willfully violation of the Constitution in executing unconstitutional powers, is in fact a criminal act. That they are NOT above the law and that they can and will be prosecuted for violating the law.
In this particular situation given the clear conflict of interest Federal courts must be banned from presiding over federal usurpation. This takes us back to the Ruby Ridge case where Idaho tried to put the Federal sniper on trial for murder, and the case got bumped up to Federal court where it was dismissed over the clam of sovereign immunity.
The assertion of “sovereign immunity” is the assertion that a Government being the source of law can do no wrong, and could not be tried in its own court.
On face value the assertion of “sovereign immunity” may seem to be fundamentally incompatible with any kind of Constitutional government, if we assume that government is to be defined as the people working under its powers (the officers and employees).
If however we are to assume that the government is in fact a republic of laws not men, then it is in fact true that the law cannot violate itself, as it is merely a law. Nevertheless, the men and women who work under that law CAN and do violate the same law.
This of course makes the idea of “sovereign immunity” a bit academic except that the other point about “sovereign immunity” is true, it cannot be tried in its own courts.
This brings us to the 11th amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
You will note that in this amendment, it excludes the Federal courts from being used as a vehicle to sue any State by any Citizens or Subjects not of the same state.
While the court has interpreted this reading as to also include a probation from being used by Citizens of the same state to sue their own state, I would assert that this is not in the wording. An indeed a useful omission if we are to assume that State Governments are also a republican form of government, with the same problems with regard to “sovereign immunity”. The propose of the 11 Amendment being to protect States from outsiders attacking their laws, not from those subject to and empowering those laws.
Am I getting a remotely plausible interpretation here?
The true conservatives, patriots, and believers in limited government may yet have their hopes restored. If the Federal government issued a ban on provate possession of firearms,, we could possibly see the greatest reduction of Federal and State employees ever.
We already have "The Oathkeepers", whose members publicly swear they will not comply with an unconstitutional order. The one basic and unifying idea in the minds of every police officer, Fderal Agent, Soldier, and elected official, is simply that at the end of the day they want to go home.
Likely most of "the enforcers" would leave their positions, abandon their orders, or simply go A.W.O.L. if such an order were given. Consider that both Ruby Ridge and the Davidian compound disasters involved huge armed forces massed against quite specific targets. However, over half of american families own and enjoy the lawful use of their firearms, and many have more than a single place of abode.
Most would not surrender their firearms. Immediate reduction in the size of government.
Just my perspective. Thank you for taking the time to consider.
~Donald P McGaffey, Citizen of the United States of America
She is a nut case! Its time people realize that she only has power because we the people elect to pay attention to her. People need to put their focus on local and state governments and ignore the federal government all together. States need to protect their citizens from unlawful prosecution by the federal government.
I don't believe Pelosi is considered a constitutional scholar. There is still a ninth amendment and a fourth amendment.
We know what time it is.