Will Nullification Lead to Conflict?

As to “the immediate conflict you would provoke” by this nullification bill, that would be up to the federal government coming into a state uninvited to enforce on the people an unconstitutional law.

This is how it started when I posted the Nullify Obamacare in North Carolina Petition on a Facebook page. In a very civil discussion we debated the pros and cons of nullification vs. “the throw the bums out” and the “go to court” approach to unconstitutional federal laws.

You say, “There are three ways to avoid Federal laws: 1) get the Congress to repeal them; 2) get the President to back down from enforcing them; and 3) get a Federal Court to enjoin their enforcement.” So, your answer is to return to the very ones who have given us this, and many other unconstitutional actions, and plead with them to stop. Well, so far that has been working real well for us, hasn’t it? And even if they did, it could be reversed at the next election.

We have tried this solution and it hasn’t worked.

Even you admit that the Supreme Court can did dig around in the Constitution to find a “clause” they say will justify this mandate. That is the problem; they will never give up powers taken from the States as long as the states refuse to say, “NO MORE!”

You say, “Sometimes impasses can be relieved through compromise among the political actors involved in a dispute. But when there is no retreat and no compromise, resort must be had to the courts and their judgments have been respected to the benefit of all, even those who may lose a particular dispute.” The only compromise we seem to be offered by the very leviathan you elude too seems to be what color of chains we would prefer.

You are correct in saying that “one or two states nullify a law will not stop them, but if more and more states do so then they have to either give in or use force.” The day they use force will be the end of this union of independent, sovereign States,because the writing will be on the wall. Either States will be forced to submit and become vassals of a centralized government, or these united States will form a new general government.


Healthcare Freedom Act: More Important than Ever

by Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute

Several states have added a Health Care Freedom Act to their constitutions, with several more states contemplating doing so through voter measures on the November 2012 ballot.  Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision inNFIB v. Sebelius, the adoption and deployment of the Health Care Freedom Act will be a vitally important tool in protecting individual autonomy.

The first state to adopt a Health Care Freedom Act was Arizona, whose voters approved it as an amendment to their Constitution in 2010.  Different versions contain varying language, but the core provision is the same: no governmental entity shall coerce, directly or indirectly, any individual to participate in a healthcare system, nor interfere with an individual’s freedom to directly purchase lawful medical services.

Obviously, the federal healthcare law violates the Health Care Freedom Act in two ways:  by directly mandating that individuals purchase prescribed health insurance, and by indirectly coercing them to do so by imposing tax penalties for refusing to follow the government’s edict.

The Health Care Freedom Act was not directly at issue in NFIB v. Sebelius, but a clash between this state constitutional protection and the federal healthcare law is inevitable.


Nullify ObamaCare!

Nullify ObamaCare In Texas. Here’s The Words. Which Texas Legislators Will Add The “Music”??

Federal Health Care Nullification Act—TEXAS

(An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.)


WHEREAS, the People of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.

WHEREAS, the assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the State of Texas to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

RESOLVED, a new section of law to be codified in the Texas Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

RESOLVED, the Legislature of the State of  Texas declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitutions of the United States (and of the sovereign state of Texas) and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

RESOLVED, it shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” within the limits of this State.