NDAA Nullification Moves Forward in Michigan

LANSING, Mich. – With the Feinstein Amendment passing the Senate Thursday, the national spotlight swiveled back onto indefinite detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act.

Many hailed the passage of the amendment as the beginning of the end of federally sanctioned kidnapping. But the amendment contains several troubling aspects, including an assumption that Congress retains the power to legislate indefinite detention in the future. And as Tenth Amendment Center legal analyst Blake Flilppi points out in his in depth analysis of the amendment, it may not even strike down indefinite detention under the NDAA.

That makes it imperative that state and local efforts to nullify detention without constitutional due process continue.

In Michigan, those efforts cleared a hurdle Tuesday. The Committee on Oversight, Reform, and Ethics unanimously passed HB5768 and sent it on for a second reading in the full House.

Details

Educating Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on Health Exchanges

In a recent interview on Fox News, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell implied that his state might not set up a state insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act. In fact, as things stand right now, he wouldn’t.

“If I had to make a decision today, we would not elect to have a state-based exchange,” he said.

But McDonnell is certainly leaving the door open for Virginia to do so. In fact, a year ago he stated that Virginia should operate its own health benefits exchange instead of defaulting to a federal exchange. And this month he indicated that he’s not willing to make the commitment one way or the other. “We’ll make it [the decision] by the 14th [of December]. If we don’t have any better information, we can’t have a state-based exchange, and we’ll join most of the other governors, including a handful of Democrats, who will opt for the federal default… we cannot have a system where they give us a price tag and limited information.”

Here’s some news for you, Bob. You aren’t allowed to set up a state health exchange in Virginia.

Details

Paying for Storm Damage

According to the New York Times, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state’s congressional delegation want the federal government to pay for $33 billion in storm damage from Hurricane Sandy plus another $9 billion for preventative measures:

“I understand the fiscal pressures that Washington is under,” Mr. Cuomo said. “I also understand the fiscal pressure that New York is under. And I know that the taxpayers of New York cannot shoulder this burden, and I don’t think it’s fair to ask them to shoulder this burden.”

I suppose one could make the argument that it wouldn’t be “fair” to make New York citizens foot the bill given that New Yorkers have helped pay for the cleanup following natural disasters in other  states. But is it “fair” for the residents of other states to subsidize rebuilding efforts on coastal areas that are prone to natural disasters? Is it “fair” for Gov. Cuomo – rumored to have eyes on running for president – to use Hurricane Sandy as an opportunity to get federal taxpayers to fund infrastructure projects that he would have otherwise had to ask his constituents to pay for?

Details

‘Due Process Guarantee Amendment’ Passes, Congress Still Able to Indefinitely Detain American Citizens

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s amendment to end the indefinite detention provision under NDAA has passed in the U.S. Senate.  The “Due Process Guarantee Amendment” has a purpose to prohibit the use of military force to detain a citizen, or lawful permanent U.S. resident, without charge or trial.

“Purpose: To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.”

The amendment appears to end the controversial NDAA provision that allows the President to detain U.S. citizens he deems a threat, without a charge or trial.  However, there are many problems with this amendment.  Given the fact that the U.S. Constitution in no way gives Congress, or the President, the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without a charge, trial, or attorney (except in cases of rebellion or invasion), you have to wonder how this amendment improves upon the original NDAA bill.

In this amendment, it states:

Details

Michigan House committee votes down health care exchanges

LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 29, 2012) – A Michigan House committee has voted down legislation that would have authorized setting up a state-run insurance exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Following extensive and spirited testimony from the assembled speakers on Thursday, the vote was 9-5 against House bill 3, substitute for Senate Bill 693, introduced by Sen. Jim Marleau. Two representatives abstained.

An intrepid group of Michigan Patriots from across the state, and with various affiliations, testified against state implementation of Obamacare exchanges.

The Tenth Amendment, nullification and interposition positions were well-articulated by the independent thinkers and grass roots activists. Tenth Amendment Center, Campaign for Liberty, Americans for Prosperity and Oath Keepers were among the groups with volunteer representation at the hearing speaking against the enabling legislation. Supporters of the Trojan Horse State Exchange proposal appeared to be primarily paid corporate and bureaucratic lobbyists, according to Health Freedom supporters on the ground.

Details

Nullifying ObamaCare: An Alternative To The Supreme Court Ruling

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional.

The Administration takes this as a green light to implement ObamaCare to its fullest extent possible. Because the election went in President Obama’s favor, the Senate and House have lost any desire to overturn the law. Without the overturn, it looks like the law making Obamacare a reality is going to stand forever.

Or is it?

In order to make Obamacare work properly, as it currently stands, there are two mainstays of Obamacare that must be carried out on the state level. Each state must implement an insurance exchange and they must drastically expand Medicare according to the law. These two items of ObamaCare will cost the states untold millions of dollars to implement.

When federal law goes bad, it is up to the states to protect their citizens. The legal theory is called nullification. Nullification is the idea that any given state has the right to invalidate federal laws that they consider unconstitutional. Somewhere along the line the Supreme Court got it wrong in their reasoning. Accordingly, it is like saying that since the government has a stake in GM it can create a law that says we can only buy GM cars. If we buy any other type of car we have to pay an extra tax on it.

Details

Arizona will not Create a State Health Exchange

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will not be implementing a state-run health insurance exchange This is a key peice to President Barack Obama’s federal health care law (Obamacare). Brewer made her decision on Wednesday. Instead of an exchange, the federal government will set up an online marketplace for the state that will offer subsidized private health coverage to the middle class.

Her decision, according to her letter informing DC of her decision, was based on the costs and suspicions associated with a state-run exchange. Other concerns raised were the inability to customize unique policies for Arizona citizens and whether or not it was constitutional.

Brewer joins approximately 20 governors nationwide who have also denied creating state-run exchanges. Hospitals, insurance companies and business groups wanted Governor Brewer to implement a state-run exchange, claiming that it would give the state flexibility in designing a program to its liking. Groups such as the Goldwater Institute and the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center, stood in opposition.

Details

NDAA Nullification Bill to be Introduced in South Carolina

Will South Carolina defend the Fifth Amendment and Due Process..through the Tenth Amendment?

Yes, if State Senator Tom Davis has his way. An update on his public Facebook page yesterday announced that he’s working on just that:

Spent today drafting the NDAA Nullification Act that I will prefile in the SC Senate next month.

Indefinite Detention of people by federal authorities has been ‘authorized’ by the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed by Barack Obama at the end of 2011. Indefinite detention is a clear violation of habeas corpus, as protected in Article 1, and due process, as protected in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment, each state has the right, the responsibility, and the duty to protect its resident from federal overreach.

NDAA Nullification legislation has already passed into law in the State of Virginia, where Bob Marshall’s HB1160 garnered massive bipartisan support from the grassroots. More than 16 local communities have passed similar resolutions and ordinances as well. In Texas, NDAA Nullification under HB149 was introduced this month. And sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect at least 10 states considering the same in 2013.

Details

Open Letter to the States to Stand Against Obamacare

Dear State Legislator and Governor,

Much of the population rightfully regards the Affordable Healthcare Act as extending far beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government.  It is undeniable that there is no power enumerated nor delegated to the federal government to compel a citizen to purchase health insurance under threat of penalty of law.  For the central government to claim such power denies the very nature of our Republic and makes the Constitutional restraints enacted by our founders null and void.

Some claim that it must be submitted to as “the law of the land” since SCOTUS made its declaration from on high.  This admits that we are not a Republic of sovereign States but a monarchy.  The Supremacy Clause declares the Constitution to be Supreme, not the federal government.  If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also….” -James Madison,Virginia Assembly Report of 1800

The founding documents and the men who wrote them make it unequivocally clear that the States have the final word on whether their creation, the federal government, has trespassed its clearly defined boundaries.  AND IT HAS.   Our States are “United” in a compact, the Constitution. 

Details

Is Louisiana Planning to Nullify Obamacare?

Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, had some negative words to say about building a health insurance exchange in his state.  In a November 16, 2012 letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. Jindal made it very clear that he disagrees with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Since the PPACA was signed into law, the State of Louisiana has repeatedly stated that the law has severe legal problems, is bad policy, and is unworkable. Those beliefs remain unchanged. With the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Court agreed with the State of Louisiana that at least one of the over 450 provisions of the PPACA is unconstitutional and the provision requiring all individuals to have insurance coverage can only be upheld as a tax. Even after the Supreme Court’s decision, there remain many questions about the legality of the PPACA involving issues fundamental to all Americans, including religious freedom and unjust taxation.

What is most interesting here is that Governor Jindal is taking the position that the State of Louisiana has independently reviewed the constitutionality of the federal act. Is this a tip of the hat to the Principles of 98?

The letter also argues that while the Supreme Court has ruled certain provisions of the PPACA constitutional, there are still certain provisions the court did not rule on, and are currently being challenged.  These include:

Details