Interposing Idaho

Recently, the Idaho legislature convened its session for 2011. While there are plenty of problems facing Potatonia, one that is particularly pressing is how to further protect its patients. In 2010, Idaho became a co-plaintiff with twenty-five of her sister states in a lawsuit lodged against the Federal government regarding the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act (PPAA). With that legal battle expected to take exorbitant time to determine, the Idaho legislature took a bold step by becoming the first state to nullify the PPAA’s individual insurance mandate by enacting the Health Care Freedom Act. Similar legislation has since been introduced across the Union, and thus far has been adopted in six additional states (Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia). This year, Idaho might go one step further with the Health Care Nullification Act.


North Carolina House Passes Health Care Freedom Act

Yesterday, the North Carolina House passed the “Protect Health Freedom” act – House Bill 2 (HB2). The bill states that:

A law or rule shall not do any of the following:

(1) Compel a person to (i) provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contract with, or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan.
(2) Interfere with a person’s right to pay directly for lawful health care services or medical treatment to preserve or enhance that person’s life or health.
(3) Impose a penalty, tax, fee, or fine on a person for (i) providing for, or failing to provide for, health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contracting with, or enrolling in, or failing to contract with or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan.

The North Carolina House vote was 66-50.


Nullification Is Unconstitutional?

So says John Miller of the WaPo. Mr Miller bases this of course on the misplaced idea that the Supremacy Clause over-rides Article I, section 8 of the Constitution which granted Congress specificenumerated powers. Except people like Mr Miller most likely don’t understand the Supremacy Clause because if they did they would know that federal laws are only supreme if they are “made in pursuance thereof” the Constitution. In plain English, the law must fall within the confines of the Constitution to be supreme. Put another way, as Tom Woods asks in response to another anti-nullification article by Paul Zummo, “does the Supremacy Clause say, ‘This Constitution and laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, along with any old laws we may choose to impose on you, shall be the supreme law of the land?’ That’s not what my copy has.”

The big government types truly believe that the several states gave up all their rights when they ratified the Constitution, completely disregarding the wealth of information from the Ratification Conventions along with the opinions of those both for and against the Constitution in the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers.