Sponsored by State Reps Hinkle, Shea, Warnick and Johnson, the Washington State Health Care Freedom Act (HB2669) 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 South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Florida and a number of other states also considering legislation or state Constitutional Amendments to effectively nullify, or resist any future national health care plan.
The language of HB2669 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.
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Unfortunately the Democrat majority nullified this bill, so the 10th Amendment nullification of Obamacare is dead in WA.
Indy - I saw one blog reporting that too - along with a similar vote on the firearms freedom act. But haven't been able to confirm on the state website or with our legislative contacts. Do you have any source to verify?
I found it here http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill...
"HB 2669 - DIGEST
Adopts the Washington state health care freedom act of
WA State Tenth Amendment Legislation
HB 2669 Adopting the Washington state health care freedom act of 2010 concerning health care services.
HB 2708 Concerning adopting the Washington state energy freedom act of 2010 and requiring
express legislative authorization for a greenhouse gas or motor vehicle fuel economy
HB 2709 Concerning adopting the Washington state firearms freedom act of 2010 and
exempting a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained
in Washington from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the Constitution
of the United States.
HB 2710 Concerning adopting the right to constitutional government act of 2010.
HB 2711 Concerning adopting the Washington state right to protection act of 2010 and the
constitutional rights of self-defense.
HB 2712 Creating the Washington state sovereignty and federal tax escrow account act of 2010.
HB 2713 Concerning adopting the Washington state sheriff first act of 2010 and regulating
arrests, searches, and seizures by federal employees.
HJM 4009 Submitted last session, stuck in State Government & Tribal Affairs Committee
Nullification is similar to a line item veto, although each subject in question must be brought up and voted on separately.
I checked and the bill appears to already be a part of the RCW. That's very exciting but now has me curious...does the nullification apply only to health care or has this state completely reclaimed state's rights?
Sandy - from my understanding of the proposed legislation, is that it applies solely to health care.
I had a feeling that was the case. At least it's a start in the right direction!
You say 'proposed legislation' but at the end the bill states: "1 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this act are each added 2 to chapter 48.44 RCW." Doesn't indicate that it needs to be sent to committee for voting purposes so I'm confused.
As well, the next poster says "each subject in question must be brought up and voted on separately. " - which is exactly what happened in 2009 when the reps attempted to take back state's rights. It went to committee and stayed there, no mention of adding it to the RCW, hence, my confusion.
I appreciate your input...thanks so much for responding!