Sponsored by State Senators Holmquist, Carrell, Roach, Stevens, Swecker, Hewitt, and Schoesler, the Washington State Health Care Freedom Act (SB6535) states that “A law or rule pertaining to health care shall not directly or indirectly compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.”
With this proposed legislation, Washington joins fifteen other states, including South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Florida also considering legislation or state Constitutional Amendments to effectively nullify, or resist any future national health care plan.
The language of SB6535 is some of the strongest of any state in proposing to reject any future national health care plan. It reads:
Any federal law, rule, order, or other act by the federal government violating the provisions of this section is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and void and of no effect in this state.(emphasis added)
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.
What’s directly implied in such nullification laws is “interposition” (as referred to by James Madison in the Virginia Resolution of 1798) that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- A One-Track Mind: Most Lawyers on Nullification - October 14, 2017
- “Few and Defined,” not “Anything and Everything.” - October 9, 2017
- Getting it Backwards: “The Nullifiers Lost in 1865” - October 7, 2017