In the health care saga’s latest twist, New York Senator, Chuck Schumer, has proposed a solution that would allow states to “opt out” of the public option, should there be one included with the final bill. Talking Points Memo reports: We’re chasing the ball on a new idea (is it a trial balloon? is it…Details
When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned. While the media of late tends to focus on the new crop of states…Details
“As Constitution day approaches…” (FYI, it’s this Thursday, September 17th!) – that’s the headline of Kay B. Day’s new article on The US Report. Here’s an excerpt: September 17 is Constitution Day, so it seems appropriate that states are rallying in an effort to combat a federal government expanding beyond its historically legal powers. Two…Details
While the traditional left has been way off base when covering issues related to the 10th Amendment, Chris Weigant over at Huffington Post is much more fair in his review of both nullification specifically, and the 10th Amendment Movement in general.
Usually, places like HuffPo, MSNBC, ThinkProgress, and elsewhere slam the 10th as being pointless, try to make fun of people who believe in limited government under the 10th by calling them “Tenthers,” try to associate the entire movement with vile racism, and other nasty rhetoric designed to distract from the real issues.
On the other hand, there’s Weigant, who’s obviously making a sincere effort to give a fair report. I think he make some good points, too. Here’s an excerpt:
The Tenth Amendment is one of the rarer parts of the Bill of Rights for the Supreme Court to actually rule on, but every so often one of these cases is taken up by the Court. And, increasingly, Republicans are using it as a “last resort” against federal laws they don’t like. Although, to be fair, one of the more recent decisions (Gonzales v. Raich) went against a California woman who argued that since she was growing medical marijuana on her own land for her own consumption, the constitutional powers of the federal government to regulate interstate trade simply did not apply. The Supreme Court disagreed, but at least it was consistent, since it had ruled during World War II that a wheat farmer could not use this argument to escape federal war efforts to regulate wheat production (Wickard v. Filburn). In both cases, the Court reasoned, even if the farmer didn’t sell his or her crop, it could still impact the interstate commerce for that crop. Meaning Congress could, indeed, regulate itDetails
It’s hard to cover everything that needs to be addressed in this 6+ minute video, but I’ll touch on a few of them below.
Here’s a few observations:
1. Turley is absolutely correct that “decades of precedent” in the courts oppose the view that the federal government is not authorized to enact a national health care plan. But, what he fails to point out, is that under the original meaning, intention and understanding of the Constitution – these kinds of powers would have been unthinkable. The court is, in plain English, wrong. Learn more here.
2. Neither the host nor Turley seem to have any clue about nullification – or its current efforts. Nullification has nothing to do with getting a positive ruling from the Supreme Court. It’s when a state passes a law simply refusing to implement a federal law. In fact, it has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been used to resist laws against free speech, fugitive slave laws, the use of the militia in war and more. Hardly “right-wing” at all. Learn more here.Details
Following the lead of Arizona and Florida, in recent weeks legislators from Louisiana and Georgia announced that they were planning on introducing State Constitutional Amendment resolutions that would allow the people of those states to effectively opt-out of any future national health care plan. And now, Michigan joins them. According to the Detroit Free Press,…Details
Asserting that the Federal government had overstepped it’s bounds as enumerated in the Constitution, James Madison with the assistance of Thomas Jefferson, drafted the resolution with the intent of nullifying the congressional act. Kentucky also adopted a similar resolution penned by Jefferson that same year.Details