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:


Is Rejecting Obamacare a Nullification Stepping Stone?

Now that we are approaching a majority of states opposing state health care exchanges, is the fact that the states have rights starting to catch on? Would success of striking down ”Obamacare” encourage states to take further action against all unconstitutional acts made by the federal government?

With states passing and/or amending their own state constitutions with such things as, health care freedom acts, firearm freedom acts, changing laws on marijuana use both medical and recreational, the thought of states completely governing themselves where the federal government doesn’t have the enumerated powers stated in the constitution is growing! But why is this such a “new idea?” This is exactly what our founding fathers intended for this country. They expressed this in their writings, the declaration of independence, the articles of confederation and the constitution would have never been ratified without the bill of rights.

What people are starting to realize is that there is no such thing as a sovereign government at any level and that people are in fact the only sovereigns. That the state is just a middle man between the people and the federal government. That the states entered into a “contract” with the federal government but also have the option to leave from the “contract” at any point if the people feel it’s necessary. Also that everyone in government is elected by and works for the people and they are supposed to represent them regardless if those representatives agree with the people or not.


Democracy and Majority Rule

President Barack Obama narrowly defeated Gov. Mitt Romney in the popular vote 51 percent to 48 percent. In the all-important Electoral College, the difference was larger, with Obama winning 303 electoral votes and Romney 206. Let’s not think so much about the election’s outcome but instead ask: What’s so good about democracy and majority rule?

How many decisions in our day-to-day lives would we like to be made through majority rule or the democratic process? How about the decision to watch a football game or “Law and Order”? What about whether to purchase a Chevrolet Volt or a Toyota Prius? Would you like the decision of whether to have turkey or ham for Thanksgiving dinner to be made through the democratic process? Were such decisions made in the political arena, most of us would deem it tyranny.

Democracy and majority rule give an aura of legitimacy and decency to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Most people would agree that having our decisions on what television shows to watch, what kind of car we’ll purchase and what we’ll eat for Thanksgiving dinner made through the democratic process is tyranny. Why isn’t it also tyranny for the political process to determine decisions such as how much should be put aside out of our paycheck for retirement; whether we purchase health insurance or not; what type of light bulbs we use; or whether we purchase 32- or 16-ounce soda containers?

The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. The word democracy appears in neither of our founding documents: our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”


The Chambliss Fix: Nullification of The Supreme Court’s decision on Term Limits

Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia is my Senator. On November, 21, 2012, he said that he is considering breaking the Americans For Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which says:

Senator Chambliss’ reasoning?

“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge.”

He has been a Senator for 20 years and if we had term limits, he would not be able to break his pledge because he would no longer be in office.

In fact, candidate qualification of term limits were enacted in eight states in the 1990s, but in 1995 with Inc v. Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that state imposed term limits are unconstitutional. Their reasoning was that the U.S. Constitution imposed some qualifications on Senators: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 3). Because the Constitution put on some candidate qualifications, The Supreme Court reasoned that the States could not put on additional candidate qualifications, such as term limits.
Clarence Thomas, in dissent, countered this line of reasoning.


UN Warns States not to legalize Marijuana. Say WHAT?!

I am a gunslinger, not a diplomat. My hand naturally went for my piece, as this was a literal slap across our faces.

A diplomat, would smile and try to work something out. Next thing I know, if the diplomat succeeds, there will be a UN rep at a desk next to the governor of Colorado(!) and some UN policy dictating to the state, using coercion and force if necessary to enforce it with ‘troops.’

Not me, not this time. The very idea that UN Warns States not to legalize Marijuana; uh oh, trouble…

I have worked with these dudes. I know their ways and never, ever turn my back to them. I learned to sit with my back to the wall, and sleep with one eye open and my piece under my pillow. These guys are relentless, ruthless, and will take all you have and with impunity, once you let them.

No, no, no. That they dared to openly speak is not good, but definitely worth noting.

I am taking note here, hoping to encourage you to do so too, and take actions, if not now, tomorrow!

Folks, be fearful of this open admonishment, actual attempt to dictate to a sovereign State via the DC gang…

What does this have to do with the UN?


Why Nullification?

How does a nation of sovereign people who believe in the fundamental principles of liberty, create a government that will not infringe on the natural rights of the creators of such a government?

Let me take you on a brief history lesson to explain.

This federal system of government we created came on the heels of a revolutionary war with Britain.  The framers of the constitution and the founding fathers through tedious debate, took great care to craft a constitution that would guard against the infringement of personal liberty by their government.

According to the Declaration of Independence, men establish governments to secure their pre-existing natural rights. Where there is no government, rights are easily threatened by others, since the coercive power of the state does not function as a deterrent. The purpose of government is, therefore, to create the conditions that allow each individual to freely exercise his rights. At the collective level, this amounts to what the Declaration of Independence calls the “safety and happiness” of the people. Legitimate government must not only secure rights but also arise out of the consent of the governed.

The consent of the governed is the standard by which a government’s legitimacy is judged.

“Governments are instituted among Men…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Since all men are created equal, no individual or group has an inherent right to rule over anyone else. The only way anyone can have the authority to govern his equals is if they consent to his rule. A government not based on consent would unjustly deprive its citizens of the fundamental right to liberty.

The framers understood this to be the most important task of the government they set forth to create.


No Budget, No Freedom

There are rallying cries from the American revolutionary period which are still axiomatic in American Society. One was apparently coined by Jonathan Mayhew in a 1750 sermon, “Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-resistance to the Higher Powers“. It is, “No taxation without representation.” Similarly, James Otis is often credited with the phrase, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” It is claimed that Otis used this phrase in his legal argument against the Writs of Assistance.

These phrases are unquestionably correct in a free society, but what is it that makes them true? What are the characteristics of taxation without representation that make it tyrannical — and how do these principles apply to today’s American society?


How Roosevelt Corrupted The Supreme Court

The Federalist Papers were written to explain the Constitution to the American people.

Federalist No. 10, by James Madison, is perhaps the best known. It explains that a major purpose of our U.S. Constitution was to control the special interest groups, or factions.

He wrote, that there were two methods of controlling factions:

One way would be to remove the causes of faction. He pointed out that,”the latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.” We all have our different opinions of how things should be done and we cannot change this inherent nature. It could be done by government force that suppresses dissenting opinions but this would destroy liberty. Madison concluded that controlling the cause of faction was not the way to go.

The other way would be to control the effects of faction.   This was done by limiting the power of the federal government through the constitution.  Then, “The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States”

Once one accepts this principle, things begin to fall into place. Of course this means that we must fight for our various causes at the state level, not the national level. Today, most people in the United States have abandoned this idea.