Obamacare: Stop the Hand-Wringing and Nullify!

Recently, two federal judges ruled in favor of Obamacare while a federal jurist in Virginia ruled against it. Huh? One must seriously question whether or not these guys are all reading the same Constitution I have before me.

In any event, I honestly cannot fathom nor can I abide all the needless hand-wringing and drama over the constitutionality of Obamacare. Of course it’s not constitutional! Going forward then, exactly what’s the most likely end game of the 20 or so Attorneys General who are suing the Administration over this latest federal intrusion in our lives?

First off, when our political system fails us, we should all remember that in the final analysis “we the people” are the final arbiters with respect to what is and what is not constitutional. Also, under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the States are implicitly within their constitutional authority to simply nullify any unconstitutional federal law, ruling or regulation. I won’t mince words here: anyone who disputes this assertion either is not an objective student of the Constitution or of American history, or is driven by an alien ideological agenda altogether.


I Think Therefore I am Free to Choose for Myself

Descartes was the French philosopher who thought of the saying “I think, therefore I am”. This simple slogan by a Frenchmen has been ridiculed in our modern age but not everything the French did was bad (yes I am being serious). It actually began the age of reason from which ideas of human individualism emerged.

He was one of the first people to tell people that if you do not understand an idea of another person then you have no right to believe it. He wasn’t saying don’t think but rather to rely on your own internal comprehension as the only comprehension because your thinking is the only thinking that defines your conscious existence. I THINK, THEREFORE I AM


Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Nullification On The Table in Maine

In Maine, a bill submitted by Rep. Richard Cebra (R-Naples) would nullify the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act of 2010 if passed. LD 58 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary today and is the first of several submitted Tenth Amendment-related pieces of legislation to move forward.

Titled “An Act To Prohibit Enforcement of the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, the bill would make it a Class C crime in the State of Maine for attempted enforcement of this law by any member of the Federal Government. Punishment under the bill for attempted enforcement has a maximum of up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Attempted enforcement by any State official would be a Class D crime, punishable with up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine.


Tom Woods With an Important Call to Action

Tom Woods interviewed by Emily O’Neill during the Common Sense Tenth Amendment Center money bomb liberty radio marathon. We’re almost 60% towards our goal in just a few days. Please help us here and thank you for your support! “The Tenth Amendment Center is on the front lines of changing the way we talk about…


Ohio introduces legislation to restrict enforcement of Obamacare

From The Ohio Republic: State Representatives Barbara Sears (R-Sylvania) and Ron Maag (R-Warren County) have introduced a bill (HB 11) to prohibit Ohio departments from enforcing the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unless it is pursuant to an act of the General Assembly, and the affected agency submits a report to the General…


Confused about a constitutional phrase?

One of the most neglected tools for understanding the Constitution is also one of the most important: The Law of the 18th century.

The Constitution is a legal document. It was written mostly by lawyers. It was explained to the ratifying public mostly by lawyers. And that public was exceptionally well-versed in law: As Edmund Burke pointed out in his 1775 speech on Reconciliation with America, “In no country perhaps in the world [as America] is the law so general a study.” And while most of the Constitution is written in straightforward lay language, it does contain some important legal terms of art.

Yet very few writers on the Constitution – even law professors – have made much of an effort to access 18th century law.


The Power to Purchase Happy Meals, Guns, and Drugs

There has been a growing list of things that you can not sell in each of the fifty states. In California you can not sell light bulbs or the American favorite happy meals. Every time they limit what can be sold we seem to lose a little bit more freedom in the choices we can make because limiting what can be sold limits what can be owned. We can not sell guns therefore we can not own them. Its only logical because in order to own something it has to be given to you by someone else thus limiting what can be sold limits what can be owned.

We can not own guns, illicit substances of any variety, happy meals, light bulbs, and the result is a loss of freedom. Our free will to live our lives the way we want is hindered because much of our life revolves around economics. Our desire to use a gun can only be fulfilled when we own a gun which can only be possible when someone can sell it to us. It seems that our freedom to do something is only possible when we have the freedom to dispose of our property the way we wish.

It’s definitely not a coincidence that people who wish to control our lives do so by controlling what we buy and sell to one another.