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.


Florida Ruling: Victory or Trojan Horse?

For Immediate Release: Feb. 01, 2011
Health Care Ruling: Victory or Trojan Horse?

While many conservatives laud yesterday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge declaring the federal health care bill passed last year unconstitutional, analysts at the Tenth Amendment Center displayed significantly less enthusiasm, calling the ruling a Trojan Horse.

“According to Vinson – and just about everyone else in the federal judiciary – the federal government actually does have the authority to control, reform, and regulate the health care industry. They’re just going about it wrong,” TAC executive director Michael Boldin said. “This is seriously dangerous for those who believe that the founders’ Constitution needs to be followed: every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.”

As James Madison explained, the commerce clause was intended to make trade “regular” between the states, primarily to prevent interstate tariff wars. Madison wrote:


End the Washington First Party

Judge Napalitano often says and writes that the Democrats and Republicans represent two branches of one “big government” party.  I heartily agree with this sentiment, but I would like to expand on it just a bit.

In his book, “The Road to Serfdom”, F. A. Hayek writes,

“What in effect unites the socialists of the Left and the Right is this common hostility to competition and their common desire to replace it by a directed economy.”

This, I believe, is the core of our problem.  We have two branches of a “Washington First” party who believe that the solution to any problem begins with a directive out of Washington, DC.  They may disagree about which directive to issue, but they are in absolute agreement that a directive is in order.

The Republican branch of the Washington First party talks about freedom and limited government, but their actions give lie to their words. What they really believe when they say “limited government” is that Washington will partner with the corporate sector to lead us to prosperity.

The Democrat branch of the Washington First party talks about civil rights and equality, but their actions give lie to their words.  What they really believe when they say, “equality”, is that Washington will partner with labor and other special interests to lead the poor out of poverty.


Interview: States Are Rejecting Federal Usurpations

“We don’t need no stinkin permission to exercise our rights. We the people need to exercise our rights whether Washington D.C. wants to give us permission slips to or not.”

Jerry Doyle interviews Michael Boldin on 01-26-11

NEWS: Firearms Freedom Act introduced in West Virginia

West Virginia state senators Sypolt, Barnes, and Hall have co-sponsored the “Firearms Freedom Act” (SB84) – for the 2011 legislative session. The bill provides that

“A personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in West Virginia and that remains within the borders of West Virginia is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the Legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

While the bill’s title focuses solely federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s mandate that powers not delegated to the federal government are “reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.”


Virginia puts the federal government on notice–again

Virginia’s House of Delegates voted overwhelmingly in favor of another pro-federalism measure on Monday. By a count of 65-33, the House passed HR46, the State Sovereignty Resolution.

Its summary as introduced:

Expresses the sense of the House of Delegates that the Congress of the United States be urged to honor state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and claims sovereignty for the Commonwealth under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

This is the legislature’s way of politely telling the federal government to butt out of issues that are not under its constitutional purview. Unfortunately, it is also largely symbolic.