ACT NOW: Help Pennsylvania Nullify Health Insurance Mandates

A proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that would protect the citizens’ right to make health care choices took a big leap forward, passing the Senate last week.

SB10 declares:

A person shall be entitled to the freedom of providing for the person’s own health care. With the exception of providing indemnity and medical benefits to injured workers, no law shall be enacted:

(1)  requiring a person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage, except as required by a court where the person is named as a party in a judicial proceeding;

(2)  prohibiting a person from or penalizing a person for making direct payment to a health care provider for tendering health care services; or

(3)  rendering a person liable for any penalty, tax, assessment, fee or fine as a result of the person’s failure to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage.

If approved by the general assembly twice, and then by people of Pennsylvania, the amendment would effectively nullify the insurance mandates in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.


Elk County, PA Takes First Step In Nullifying NDAA

Prompted by citizens concerned over one of the federal government’s latest oversteps, the county commissioners in Elk County, Pennsylvania voted unanimously in favor of a resolution opposing sections of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

Shortly after the president signed the act into law, members of the local Tea Party addressed the county commissioners in a January 17th meeting, calling for the adoption of a resolution on behalf of the county’s residents. Blaise Dornisch, a member of the Elk County Tea Party, brought to the attention of the board sections of the act which expand the executive’s power to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. The board promised to consider the issue and the meeting was closed.

At the following meeting, Resolution No. 2012-03 was unanimously adopted by the bi-partisan commission. Titled “To Preserve Habeas Corpus And Civil Liberties,” the resolution invokes both the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions to defend the rights of county residents. The commissioners found that Sections 1021 and 1022 “jeopardize the fundamental rights of American citizens to remain free from detention without due process and the right to habeas corpus….” They further declare that such an act is “in direct contravention of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.”

On its own, this resolution from a small county in Pennsylvania holds little weight. However, the county Sheriff’s department is in agreement, and has promised to support the resolution and “protect the constitutional rights of all citizens.”


The Supreme Court is Invalidating the Founder’s Intent

No matter what decision the Supreme Court reaches regarding Obamacare, the SCOTUS is, and has been, acting unconstitutionally for decades since FDR. The U.S. Constitution is clear on the role of the court, as are the Federal Papers and the many correspondences between the founders. Its role is simply as arbiter, not legislator. Legislation and law were intended to be introduced and voted on in the House first and foremost. The Constitution is clear about who holds the law making responsibility. There is no alternative, including interpretations of laws by the SCOTUS. They were only meant to validate or invalidate a laws legitimacy based on the founder’s intent.

Let’s start with the intent. The intended purpose of the Constitution was to limit Federal Power. The clearest and easiest evidence to understand and to support that is the Tenth Amendment. Why else would the founders/states have insisted on this addition if the intent was not to limit central power? The U.S. Constitution would not have been ratified without the guarantee of the Bill of Rights, which includes the 10th Amendment. The Bill of Rights underlines the distrust the states and the people had for this newly formed central government. Today, it is painfully apparent how little the power of the Tenth Amendment has been utilized in the fight to curb centralized programs. But it has seen a renewed commitment to make it relevant again.

The SCOTUS was intended by the founders to simply serve as referee to ensure the legislature only passes laws that meet the limits and protections within the Constitution. Madison believed the role would be utilized on a very limited basis, and in the Federal Papers, he insists the concern about precedence was unwarranted. He suggested that every case that came before the SCOTUS would be looked at from the perspective of the original intent and not subsequent cases. How wrong he was.