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.


ACTION ALERT: Help Maryland Nullify the TSA

Un-consented contact means a contact that a person does not want, or contact that was informed as wanted to avoid. This is exactly what Maryland’s House Bill 1111 is proposing to make a crime. The legislation could substantially curb the federally mandated Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) blatant violations of American’s civil rights. We urge you to contact the individual leaders of the House Judiciary Committee and express your support for this bill, and the protection of our Constitutional rights.

The Maryland State Legislature proposes in the bill titled “Public Safety – Restrictions on Searches for Security Purposes – Penalties”, to define illegal detention,  search, and seizure by a public servant as a crime against the victim of the encroachment, and authorizes the State Attorney General to make use of existing laws and the Tenth Amendment as a defense against any federally levied claims against its constitutionality:


Prohibiting a specified public servant, while acting under color of the public servant’s office or employment, from intentionally subjecting another person to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that the public servant knows is unlawful, intentionally denying or impeding another person in the exercise or enjoyment of a right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing that the conduct of the public servant is unlawful, or intentionally subjecting another person to sexual harassment; etc.



The Supreme Court and Obamacare

by Ron Paul

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It’s doubtful the entire law will be struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to “regulate” commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.

The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state– a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.


Pennsylvania Legislature Overwhelmingly Passes Real ID Nullification. Governor’s Signature Next?

Last October, the Pennsylvania Senate voted unanimously to refuse to comply with the Bush era Federal Real ID law by passing SB354. Today, the House concurred, passing it by a vote of 189-5. Senator Mike Folmer (R, district 48) announced passage on his Facebook page,

“I am especially pleased my Senate Bill 354 to exempt Pennsylvania from the mandates of the federal REAL ID law was passed by the full House 189 – 5. If signed by the Governor, Pennsylvania would be the largest state to opt out.”

This legislation states,

Neither the Governor nor the Department of Transportation or any other Commonwealth agency shall participate in the REAL ID Act of 2005 or regulations promulgated thereunder.

and if Governor Corbett signs it, it will take affect in 60 days.


A New age of Jefferson: How will the world respond to American decentralization?

The optimists on Charlie Rose last Wednesday night said the Supreme Court vote would likely preserve Obamacare. Turning back the way of life since FDR seems unrealistic. The war of ideas between centralization and decentralization is supposed to have been settled at Cemetery Ridge. But this is not over. Senator Mike Lee of Utah said 5-4 turning back the Obama initiative.

Pundits say it is as important as Brown v. Board of Education. It is a good comparison in that, yes, what the Court rules will change America. I felt the best perspective was in an editorial, “Bracing for the Court” in the New York Sun. They compare the challenge today to an appeal to the Supreme Court in 1935 by a family of kosher butchers, challenged the constitutionality of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was the centerpiece of the New Deal. They appealed to the Supreme Court on much the same grounds as the states are now making their appeal on health care.

But consider the scope of the challenge to centralization then and that of today. This is not a challenge from a family of kosher butchers in Brooklyn. The challenge to centralization today comes from 26 states. It goes beyond Brown v Board of Education and past Schechter Poultry v. U.S. It goes to our very beginnings.


Postal Problems: the Role of Government Micromanagement

Postal expert Michael Schuyler has released a follow-up to his January paper that compared the recent financial performance of the U.S. Postal Service to foreign postal service providers. Not surprisingly, the USPS has fared relatively poorly in comparison to its foreign counterparts. In his new paper, Schuyler looks at the role government micromanagement plays and finds that “Foreign posts have much more flexibility than USPS to adjust operations to keep costs in line with revenue.”

The following are some key points:


Will Pennsylvania Nullify Health Mandates?

After having been reviewed multiple times since January 31st 2011, the Pennsylvania Senate passed Senate Bill 10 (SB10) by a vote of  29-19.  The bill is a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania which would prohibit any government from requiring the Pennsylvanians to buy health insurance. It states, in part –

“no law shall be enacted requiring a person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage”

Pennsylvania Senate District 25’s Joseph B. Scarnati is the prime sponsor of the bill which still requires a vote by the General Assembly’s House of Representatives. Once fully passed by both houses, it can be placed on the ballot for a statewide referendum.

Already, ten states have passed similar bills, commonly referred to as the Health Care Freedom Act. With the current SCOTUS review of Obamacare, this action along with many others currently in process in other states, sends a clear message that Americans are not content with the Federal Government encroaching on their liberties.

The amendment, if approved by the people of Pennsylvania, would also prevent the federal government from imposing fines or penalties against people who don’t buy insurance — up to 2.5 percent of household income.