The Nashville, TN Nullify Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Rally

Sunday March 10 Nashville, Tennessee, speakers from all around brought attention to Tennessee the faults and troubles of the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion.

Sparking off the rally was host, Michael Lofti, Secretary of the Tennessee Libertarian Party and owner the thelibertypaper.org. He started off by saying, Tennessee is a red state. So how are we up here? You can blame Obama and the democrats, but why are we up here. We are up here because even the Tennessee Republicans have been swept up into the bribes that the federal government is promising in the expansion of Medicaid. It is up to the people of Tennessee, through House Bill 937 and Senate Bill 804 to stop it!

House Rep Jeremy Durham spoke next. Representative Durham is the sponsor of HB 937. HB 937 states,

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the state shall not establish, facilitate, implement, or participate in any new expansion of the medical assistance program, also known as the Medicaid program, pursuant to the Patient – 3 – 002738 Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, as amended, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, to be unconstitutional when applied to states as a mandatory expansion. The state is prohibited from amending the state plan or any federal waiver under title XIX of the federal Social Security Act in order to effectuate any such expansion of the Medicaid or TennCare program in this state.

In his speech, Rep. Durham said, the implementing Obamacare will put is right back in that same fiscal crisis Tenncare put Tennessee in 8 years ago. Many people had to be cut from the rolls to make the program solvent. Currently, under the new Medicaid plan 47,000 people are already eligible. “It’s not at the 90% or 100% matching rate (the amount the state has to match the cost to the federal government). This is at the regular matching rate. In first fiscal year we’d be on the hook for 137 and half million we’d be on the hook for and we cannot do anything about. I’m sure everyone will be shocked if you don’t already know, there is also a federal exize tax associated with Obamacare. Basically, all the insurance premiums and revenue generated across the country even state run programs have to pay a pro-rated tax. It basically would cost 50 million dollars in Tennessee. So if we grow Tenncare, that tax goes up. It’s just another reason not to expand Medicaid.”

He continued, “Hospitals and other interest groups are talking to legislators trying to convince them of all the horrible things will happen if we don’t expand Medicaid. They are good at what they do. There are always well intended reasons and well intended groups that will suggesting us to abandon our principles contrary to sound conservative judgement. That’s how we got in the fiscal straights we are in today. It is extremely important that we stop using that mindset and we say no.”

US Congressman Scott Desjarlais was up next to speak. “We are on a slipper slope and it’s putting us in the wrong direction. The health care act in general, lets just go back about four years, about 64% of us didn’t want it, we didn’t ask for it, and we can’t afford it. This bill is about one of the poorest pieces of legislation written in a long, long time. It’s almost as if they passed it without reading it. There are a lot of mistakes in this bill, and they knew it. They had to rush this bill through in the middle of the night, the day before Christmas.

He continued, “It has some fundamental flaws. One of which is the federal and state exchanges. I applaud the governor for making the first step in helping strike down a bad health care law by refusing to set up a state exchange, and I’ll tell you why that is important. When they started rolling out Obamacare, or the Affordable Health Care Act, or let’s just call it for what it is, the Socialization of our healthcare. This was not very popular among the states. It was because it was a federal takeover of our health care system. So when they start pushing the federal exchanges there was a lot of pushback from the people.”

Details

Round Two for Tennessee’s SB250

On Wednesday, SB250 testimony continued from last week’s committee hearing on the 19th. Last week’s committee meeting was delayed for an opinion for the State’s Attorney General. The Attorney General’s opinion. See citings from the Attorney General in the link to his opinion.

“Tennessee lacks authority to render them ineffective within its borders, for the States are not “free to nullify for their own people the legislative decisions that Congress has made on behalf of all the People.” While the Bills themselves declare that certain federal firearms regulations are unconstitutional as, for example, by exceeding the scope of the commerce power, see SB250 § 2, the responsibility for that determination rests with the judiciary, not a state legislature. Absent such a judicial determination—and SB250 lists “judicial opinions” among the “federal action” that it proscribes, SB § 1—federal law is effective in Tennessee. “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .” “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it”. Nor may a state legislature accomplish the nullification of federal firearms regulation indirectly, either by criminalizing the activities of federal officers or by criminalizing actions of state citizens, such as firearm dealers, who have enforcement obligations under federal law, since to do so would make compliance with both federal and state regulations impossible. In either instance, the Bills’ provisions would directly threaten to frustrate federal policy objectives and to impair the ability of federal actors to carry them out. Consequently, the Bills violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

The committee meeting started off with Senator Kelsey talking about the history of nullification in a long drawn out speech that looked more like an effort to waste time than inform. After which, Senator Kelsey asked for speakers to be introduced in a testimony in favor of SB250.

Details

Alaska House Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, 31-5

Today, February 25th, Alaska’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, HB69, has passed the State House and will now move on to the Senate for concurrence.

On the 20th of February, HB69 was read during the House Judicial Committee meeting where it was then scheduled for a hearing that was held today. During that hearing meeting, the bill was read for a second reading where the committee unanimously consented to the bills adoption.  It was then considered by the full house.  The vote was 31-5.

HB69 states, in part: “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is possessed in this state or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.” [emphasis added]

The bill continues, “The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition possessed in this state or made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state.”

Unlike the firearms freedom act which passed in 2010, the bill covers firearms not only manufactured in the state, but also those simply “possessed” within the boundaries of the state.  It also provides for a penalty for anyone enforcing federal bans or regulations on firearms in Alaska.

Details

6th County in North Carolina Passes Second Amendment Preservation Act

Local action on defending the Second Amendment is passing through many cities, towns, and counties across the country. In one state, the Second Amendment Preservation Act is sweeping through the counties like wild fire. In North Carolina many counties have passed acts the Second Amendment Preservation Act. Currently Cherokee, Beaufort, Lenoir, Pitt and Franklin Counties have all passed this act. Now, the sixth county to pass this act is Moore County.

In a Moore County Memorandum,

“In light of recent events, popular discussion and national debate it is proposed that the Moore County Board of Commissioners publicly restate their commitment to both the North Carolina and United States Constitutions and, particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment to the United States’ Constitution states that “[a] well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina State Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.” Each of the Moore County Board of Commissioners has sworn by solemn oath to uphold both the North Carolina and United States Constitutions.”

The Memorandum finalizes the decision,

Details

On 71st Anniversary of Indefinite Detention Order, SCOTUS Refuses Indefinite Detention Case

The detention of belligerents until hostilities end is not new in American history. February 19th historically bears the weight of tyrants rule in the name of national security. The War Powers Act of 1941 led the way for the internment of Japanese American citizens. Like all War Powers Acts, the President was allowed to declare an enemy and created a “legal” landscape to strip rights away.

The abuse of executive orders have occured by many presidents. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had many. In 1941 he signed 383 executive orders and in 1942 he signed 289. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened on December 7th, 1941. On December 18th of 1941, The First War Powers Act was instituted. It was established to direct departments to communicate with each other, suspended conflicting laws, and censor whatever the executive wanted.

Executive Order 8985 states, “There is hereby established the Office of Censorship, at the head of which shall be a Director of Censorship. The Director of Censorship shall cause to be censored, in his absolute discretion, communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country or which may be carried by any vessel or other means of transportation touching at any port, place, or Territory of the United States and bound to or from any foreign country, in accordance with such rules and regulations as the President shall from time to time prescribe.

By February 19th, 1942, executive order 9066 was signed by FDR. This executive order stated

Details

Tennessee’s Judiciary Committee Delays 2nd Amendment Preservation Act

On Tuesday Feb. 19, at 4pm, the Tennessee Second Amendment Preservation Act had a committee hearing.

Many supporters came to the meeting, almost filling up the room. Some people brought signs, and most wore stickers in support SB250.

The hearing started off with Senator Mae Beavers reading the bill in front of the committee members and audience. This bill is to amend the current Firearms Freedom Act which most on the committee had signed. The Firearms Freedom Act, which composed of SB1610 and HB1796, was signed into law in 2009. The Firearms Freedom Act is different from the Second Amendment Preservation Act by mandating the state of Tennessee to retain the responsibility of intrastate commerce regarding firearms, accessories, and ammo. The Second Amendment Preservation Act would nullify all laws, act, orders from banning, restricting, and straight up infringing on the Second Amendment.

“The general assembly declares that any federal action prohibited by this chapter relating to firearms, firearms accessories or ammunition, whether made in Tennessee or not, is not authorized by the United States constitution and violates the restrictions contained therein and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state; that said federal action shall not be recognized by this state; and that said federal action is rejected by this state and shall be null and void and of no effect in this state.”

SB250 continues:

“Any federal action shall be deemed an intentional violation of state sovereignty and shall be unenforceable within the borders of Tennessee if the federal action does or attempts to: (1) Infringe on, ban, regulate, or restrict state government, local government or civilian ownership, transfer, possession or manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition in this state; (2) Require any state government, local government or civilian owned firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition in this state to be registered or tracked in any manner; or (3) Impose federal taxes, fees or any other charges on any state government, local government or civilian owned firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that are payable to any government entity.”

After Senator Beavers spoke, June Griffen Chairman of the Tennessee Committee for the Bill of Rights, testified that the Bill of Rights, both state and federal, are guarantees for “we the people”. June cited many sections of Tennessee’s Constitution.

Section 26 of the the Tennessee Constitution states, “That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense, but the Legislature shall have the power, by law, to regulate the wearing arms with a view to prevent crime.”

Details

Pennsylvania Bill Would Reject Medicaid Expansion

Representative Saylor has introduced HB 269, an Act prohibiting the expansion of Medicaid. This bill is currently in the House Committee on Health. This bill has 37 co-sponsors

HB 269 says, “Notwithstanding any other law, eligibility criteria for voluntary populations to receive medical assistance approved under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may not be expanded.”

Representative Saylor compared the promises of the federal government’s bribes of expanding Medicaid to previous bribes for special education in a press conference.Bribes from the federal government are costing Pennsylvania taxpayers an immense amount in property tax due to the special education requirements. The federal government had promised to fund 40% of special education but only lived up to fund 8%. In the video, Representative Saylor said, “The current cost, here in Pennsylvania is expected to rise to about 400 million dollars in the upcoming fiscal budget the governor will unveil tomorrow (02/05/2013). Well, it’s an important program. Most definitely. We all want to see those in great need to be taken care of. But, at some point, as you heard today, this program is truly outpacing the ability of Pennsylvania taxpayers to pay for it. One in every four, as you heard, Pennsylvanians under this program is being proposed to expand, would be enrolled under free health care pay, in this state. And the published reports the federal government had put that they will put in 100%. This goes back to promises. Promises made. Promises not kept by the federal government. This will in the end cost Pennsylvania taxpayers, well over a billion dollars a year. Starting off in the first year with a 200 million dollar increase.”

He later continued, “The problem is the hearts are blocked by the fat regulations and rules the federal government puts on the Pennsylvania government and all governments and states responding to it. They are getting close to causing Pennsylvania and many states to have a heart attack. At some point and time, we have got to understand that the federal government is not going to live up to their promises. And more importantly, they continue to pass more and more regulations and passing the buck onto the states to pay for programs they want to see done.”

Details

Texas Anti-Drone Bill Includes Civil and Criminal Penalties

HB83, filed by Representative Gooden, will nullify drones being implemented in Texas. This bill has been co-sponsored by Representative Stephenson.

HB83, would make it a Class C misdemeanor to capture images with a drone without a warrant or probable cause of a felony, or imminent danger. “Illegal use of unmanned vehicle or aircraft to capture image. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses or authorizes the use of an unmanned vehicle or aircraft to capture an image without the express consent of the person who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image… A civil penalty of $1,000, subject to adjustment of the dollar amount under for each image of the plaintiff or of the real property owned or legally occupied by the plaintiff that is captured, possessed, disclosed, displayed, distributed, or otherwise used;”

This bill is different the the FAA regulation that calls it fair play for drone surviellance within 100 miles of the border. HB83 limits using a drone surveillance, “of real property or a person on real property that
is within 25 miles of the United States border for the sole purpose of enforcing border laws.”

Details

Missouri Legislation Would Nullify Federal Gun “Laws”

Representative Funderburk introduced a Second Amendment Preservation Act, House Bill 436. This bill is cosponsored by many representatives including Representatives: Jones, Burlinson, Hicks, Rhoads, Ross, Miller, Parkinson, Remole, Anderson, Hurst, Bahr, Brown, Smith, Koenig, Curtman, Dugger, Morris, Sommer, Leara, Gatschenberger, Brattin, Schieffer, and Korman. Missouri is serious by upholding the federal government to its Constitutional responsibility to not infringe on the people’s right to bear arms. Previously, Representative Sommer had introduced HB 162, A Firearms Freedom Act and HB 181 and Interstate Commerce Act.

HB 436 states, “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to: (a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934; (b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968; (c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; (g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.”

This bill acknowledges that federal gun regulations have been around for decades. The Gun Control Act of 1934 set up the battle between the right to bear arms and state sovereignty. In Franklin E. Zimring article, Firearms and Federal Laws: The Gun Control Act of 1968 describes how this battle started. “The National Firearms Act of 1934, after the handgun registration provisions were deleted, was a concentrated attack on civilian ownership of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, and other relatively rare firearms that had acquired reputations as gangster weapons during the years preceding its passage. Modeled on the Harrison Narcotics Act, the N.F.A. based its regulatory powers on a tax imposed on traffic in the weapons, thus generating federal jurisdiction for intrastate as well as interstate transactions. The tax rate, $200 per transfer, did not seem calculated to encourage extensive commerce in these weapon. The Act also provided for the immediate registration of all covered weapons, even if illegally owned a provision altered in 1968, after the United States Supreme Court held the 1934 provision to be an infringement on the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.”

Details

Texas to Stop Medicaid Expansion by State Constitutional Amendment?

Senator Donna Campbell has filed a Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 5, “proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the rights of individuals to choose or decline to choose to purchase health insurance coverage. This bill has been co-sponsored by Senators Estes and Paxton.

Joint resolutions are different than bills. “Joint resolutions proposing amendments to the Texas Constitution require a vote of two-thirds of the total membership of each chamber for adoption… A joint resolution takes the same course through both chambers as a bill and is like a bill in all respects, except that, in the house, if it receives the required number of votes at any reading after the first reading, the resolution is passed. Three readings are required to pass a joint resolution in the senate. Joint resolutions passed by the legislature are not submitted to the governor for signing but are filed directly with the secretary of state. An amendment to the Texas Constitution proposed by an adopted joint resolution does not become effective until it is approved by Texas voters at a general election.”

By January 1st, 2014, the Medicaid Expansion will take full effect, expanding, “Medicaid coverage to all non-elderly individuals with incomes below 133 of the federal poverty level (FPL)- currently $14,404 for an individual and $24,353 a year for a family of three.” At the Medicaid website, it illustrates that, “States will receive their regular federal match rate for the newly covered populations beginning in 2014. For three years – from 2014 through 2016 – states will receive full federal financing that will cover the costs of expansion populations. Starting in 2017 and going forward states will receive a much higher federal matching rate for their expansion populations. These federal grants are really just taxpayers money that will increase in 4 years to cover 133% of population under the federal poverty level.”

Details