Missouri House Votes to Nullify Obamacare in its Entirety

On April 19, 2012, HB:1534 passed the Missouri House with a vote of 108 to 44! The bill “Declares the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unauthorized by the United States Constitution and creates criminal penalties for persons enforcing or attempting to enforce the act”

But the good news doesn’t stop there. Inside reports tell us that when the absent Representatives who have committed to vote “yes” are able to do so, HB1534 should have a veto-proof majority.

This is a major step beyond what a number of states around the country – including Missouri – have been doing previously, rejecting just the mandate portion of the federal act.

(To see how your Missouri Representative voted, please see the following link: Ayes and Noes of 1534. If they voted “No”, you may wish to let them know your concern by sending them a polite message. Use the following link to look up your Missouri Representative.)

Additionally, it’s important to notice that when HB1534 was “perfected” in the Missouri House several days ago (with a vote of 109 to 49) – there weren’t any amendments offered. This also is encouraging, as it means that the preferred language, consisting of a Jeffersonian style nullification of Obamacare (along with the arrest of federal officials who attempt to enforce Obamacare), was retained in the bill.

Details

ACTION ALERT: Help Maryland Nullify the TSA

Un-consented contact means a contact that a person does not want, or contact that was informed as wanted to avoid. This is exactly what Maryland’s House Bill 1111 is proposing to make a crime. The legislation could substantially curb the federally mandated Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) blatant violations of American’s civil rights. We urge you to contact the individual leaders of the House Judiciary Committee and express your support for this bill, and the protection of our Constitutional rights.

The Maryland State Legislature proposes in the bill titled “Public Safety – Restrictions on Searches for Security Purposes – Penalties”, to define illegal detention,  search, and seizure by a public servant as a crime against the victim of the encroachment, and authorizes the State Attorney General to make use of existing laws and the Tenth Amendment as a defense against any federally levied claims against its constitutionality:

Synopsis:

Prohibiting a specified public servant, while acting under color of the public servant’s office or employment, from intentionally subjecting another person to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that the public servant knows is unlawful, intentionally denying or impeding another person in the exercise or enjoyment of a right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing that the conduct of the public servant is unlawful, or intentionally subjecting another person to sexual harassment; etc.

ACTION ITEMS

Details

South Carolina reps see the light on Commerce Clause

Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed. From NetRightDaily: “State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead…

Details

Supreme Court gets the Constitution right, for once

In an overwhelming 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the odious Westboro Baptist Church and the First Amendment. That is, the amendment which protects ALL speech, not just politically-correct, state-approved speech. Bravo. The nine highest-paid federal judges in the land have proved themselves capable of comprehending the plain language of the Constitution. Why then,  we…

Details

VA Senate Kills Intrastate Commerce Act Without a Vote

Another year, another trip to the Senate Death Star for the Intrastate Commerce Act (HB1438). Without even recording a vote, the elected “representatives” on the Senate Commerce and Labor Sub-Committee #1 left Virginia residents and businesses exposed to the economic and regulatory ravages of every federal agency from the EPA to the FDA to the BATF. When will…

Details

What’s to Celebrate?

I did not celebrate Constitution Day September 17, primarily because I did not know how to do so. The Federal Government requires the college where I work to do something on that day to qualify for it’s Title IV grant for which, if people really read the document, they would find no authority.

I was asked to give suggestions. The assigned administrator and I pondered several options, none of which seemed fitting or particularly meaningful. Still, we should do something; ignorance on this document is appalling and patriotism from those under 25 seems virtually dead. Even the president was filmed recently with his hands to his side during the playing of the national anthem, expressing total ignorance, total disrespect, or both (see the video on LibertyUnderFire.org).

Nearly no one reads this document anymore. Republicans only give lip service to it, and Democrats don’t even pretend to do that much. So how shall we celebrate Constitution Day? Should we celebrate the total disregard of the list in Article I, Section 8 from which the government is limited in making laws?

Details

The Real National Debate: Hamilton vs Jefferson

Perhaps the status quo is no longer holding; people are growing more and more dissatisfied with their options, whether democrat or republican.

The truth is, the current two-party system always leaves one half of a country ticked off and feeling oppressed.  This begs the question; is this really what the Founders intended 233 years ago when they signed a document that started the country?  Did they really intend Congress to manipulate 3 Clauses in Article 1 Section 8 so as to rack up a $105 trillion dollar debt?  Did they intend to have the 10th Amendment ridiculed like it was by David Shuster on MSNBC?  Did they really want one-half of the country perpetually angry at the other?

Details