Supreme Nonsense

The US Supreme Court has proven once again that it has no interest in upholding the US Constitution.

PPACA is absolutely and completely unconstitutional and should have been struck down in its entirety.   Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to save it by accepting the government’s argument that the mandate could be viewed as a tax.  In essence, this “law” was rewritten by the court to ensure its survival.

This tax/penalty applies to a certain class of people who by choice go without health insurance. It is enforced by the IRS, and don’t worry, it’s not really a large amount of money anyway.  Gee, thanks.  Roberts’ opinion (p. 32 of the Court document) states, “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one… As we have explained, ‘every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality’.”

Those who put their hopes in the federal supreme court to rescue them from the federal government are probably still in shock, but should have expected this outcome by now.  The biggest mistake today is the assumption that the US Supreme Court has the final say on what’s constitutional, and the states must just sit there and take it.  Not so.

Details

If You Have an Ally, Don’t Go It Alone

Cross posted from the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

There is a point that I think I’ve been trying to get to for much of the time that I’ve been working with the Tenth Amendment Center.  Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ve done a very good job at getting there.  I’ve written a few articles that skirted past it and danced around it, but I kept missing this particular target.  It’s something that we probably all know, but maybe we don’t all know that we know it.

I got close to this idea it in The Individual and the Tenth, where I talked about the role of the individual in resisting the federal government during the “Whiskey Rebellion”.  Apparently, though, I didn’t really have things clear enough in my own mind at the time, because I only got part way there.  It came closer to the surface some time last year, when I drew up this diagram, intended to depict the proper Constitutional balance of power.

Details

Republican Freshmen Protect Big Government

The Community Development Block Grant program is a perfect example of the blurring of responsibility between the federal government and the states. The program’s roots go back to the Great Society and the wishful belief that the problems of urban Americans could be solved with handouts from Washington. Instead, the program “has degenerated into a federal slush…

Details

Celebrate Independence, Not Dependence

During some recent travels, I found myself once again engrossed, in Tom Wood’s book Nullification. As I read through a particular passage, it occurred to me that my past Fourth of July celebrations have been somewhat misguided.

I paused and recalled the section of the Declaration of Independence that discussed “…free and Independent States.” But what was the trade-off? I wondered. Becoming “free and independent states” compared to what?

At that point in history – and really, I think for all of time – “free and independent states” stand in direct contrast to dependence on a singular, monolithic power dictating how our wealth is allocated and what we may or may no do as we walk through our daily lives.

Why do I think decentralized states choosing their own destiny, associations and relationships is better than one entity determining everything for them? I guess you could ask: why is walking better than crawling for a child?

As parents, we all hope our children will eventually grow up. We nurture our kids, teach them, instill values in them, and eventually we push them out of the nest to fly on their own. We celebrate their independence when they graduate college. We praise them for standing on their own two feet when they land that first job or purchase their own home.

Why?

Details

Oklahoma State Rep to File Bill to Nullify Individual Mandate

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Mike Ritze plans to reintroduce a bill to “nullify” the individual mandate in the 2010 federal health care legislation in Oklahoma. “I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling and believe that state governments were intended to serve as a check on the federal government,” said Ritze, R-Broken Arrow. “The Patient…

Details

States are Resisting Obamacare

This episode is made possible in part by the new Nullification Movie. Now available for pre-order at tenthamendmentcenter.com/movie

*******

After the Roberts Court handed down the Obamacare decision, people in the states immediately taking steps to reject the act – and what they see as a supreme court ruling in violation of the Constitution.

As we reported last week, John Lynch, the Democratic Governor of New Hampshire, signed into law HB1297. The new law declares, “No New Hampshire state agency, department, or political subdivision shall plan, create, participate in or enable a state-based exchange for health insurance under the Act, or contract with any private entity to do so.”

A number of governors are lining up to follow New Hampshire’s lead.

On Fox News last Thursday night, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declared, “Absolutely, we’re not implementing the exchanges. We’re not implementing ObamaCare”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s reaction to the ruling was essentially the same thing: “Wisconsin will not take any action to implement ObamaCare.”

And in Florida, from Governor Scott, “We’re not going to implement Obamacare in Florida. We’re not going to expand Medicaid because we’re going to do the right thing. We’re not going to do the exchange.”

While opponents of Obamacare certainly have something to cheer about with this level of non-compliance, they shouldn’t consider these small steps a silver bullet to stop the act either.

Details

Montanans Plead the 10th

Last August, a group of medical practitioners and pharmaceutical manufacturers filed suit against the federal government in U.S. District Court. They claimed the feds violated their rights by sending armed agents into their businesses and, according to a report in the Santa Fe New Mexican “‘seized and destroyed thousands of live plants,’ and ‘took away hundreds of pounds of dried marijuana’ during a March 2011 raid on licensed producers, and stripped certain providers of lights and other equipment used to grow and distribute the herb, which caused […] significant financial damage.”

But the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, saying the issue had “already been decided.”

However, as Daniel Abrahamson notes, medical marijuana hasn’t really been decided by the courts, as most of the relevant cases haven’t actually been argued in court. In nearly all cases, the parties have settled or withdrawn their appeals. So it would appear to be an open question, ripe for such a challenge.

The group hopes they’ll have their chance to advance their case later this year in the 9th Circuit Court. One of the chief complaints raised by attorney Paul Livingston, who represents this Montana group, is that “It is truly astonishing that so much weight is given, so many actions taken, and so much reliance placed on a demonstrably false notion; that marijuana has no known medical uses.”

But the main thrust of their case doesn’t rest solely on the medical science regarding cannabis, the 10th Amendment will also be key to their argument. Livingston will attempt to show that both the power to police and provide safety to the public lie not with the Feds, but with the several states. Such a two-pronged approach ought to be the most effective, insomuch as petitioning the government courts to limit their own powers is concerned.

Details

Kentucky petition calling for federal health care nullification

I find a silver lining in the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – it apparently woke a lot of people up. Across the nation, I hear talk of non-compliance with and outright nullification of the PPACA.

Many Americans counted on the Supreme Court to protect them from overreaching federal power. The Court clearly demonstrated that depending on part of the federal government to restrain the power of the federal turns out to be a pretty nonsensical position.

Thomas Jefferson said that the states were not united on a principle of unlimited submission to the general government and when the feds take on powers not delegated, the act is unauthoritative, void and of no force. He called state nullification “the rightful remedy.”

In Kentucky, Jordan Palmer created a petition calling for state legislators to recite a pledge to the Commonwealth and urging the Kentucky legislature to nullify the PPACA.

The proposed pledge asserts the state’s sovereignty.

Details