As much as the federal government is rightfully criticized on this website, it is time to give credit where credit is due. They truly understand that persistence is key. No matter how hairbrained, laughable, or destructive their schemes may be, they always keep trying to push them down our throats. As a general rule, this persistence pays off. To see how, one only needs to consider Pres. Obama’s announcement that American airpower will now be directed at Syria.Details
The on-going implosion of Obamacare continues, as a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision against IRS subsidies for federal health care exchanges. In a 2-1 opinion, the court found Obamacare’s tax credit scheme to be unlawful.Details
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
This past weekend Mitt Romney said that “there are a number of things that I like in [Obamacare] that I’m going to put in place.” Such a revelation is yet another example of why relying on federal politicians -particularly of the Republican persuasion – to restore human liberty is foolish.
Throughout the primary season Romney assured Republican voters that he was against the Affordable Care Act and, if he was elected president, would put an end to it. In June of 2011 he told CNN’s Piers Morgan that “if I’m president I will repeal Obamacare.” (The entire clip is full of gems, and worth watching, if you have the stomach for such things). He continued this promise throughout the debates, and used it a number of times to parry attacks from Rick Santorum on the issue.
That he’s now reversing his rhetoric should come as no surprise. Such flip-flopping is standard fare with Mitt Romney, as virtually everyone is aware; his YouTube collections of contradictory statements and backpedaling are impressive, if not comical for their sheer numbers. Now, this is not to say that other politicians don’t also have similar montages, plenty do, but what’s striking about Romney’s are that some go on for twenty minutes.
No doubt some conservatives and right-leaning independents are surprised and disappointed by this shift,Details
Kansas Representative O’Hara says that HR6021 (Opposition to NDAA) an important first step
In a hopeful attempt at interposition between the people of Kansas and the Federal Government, Chris Hong, wrote an April 25 article at L J World.com entitled “House committee looks at measure that advocates individual rights” that “The Veterans, Military and Homeland Security committee held a hearing on HR:6021, which opposes the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act signed by Pres. Obama. According to the resolution, the NDAA allows the ‘arrest, detention and rendition of American citizens without trial.’”
With a number of Kansans concerned that individual rights of Kansans (as well as those of people all across the United States) are under threat by the Federal Government’s NDAA measures – a reported “high number” of concerned people attended the hearing in the hopes of offering verbal support for HR:6021. In fact, it was stated that with testimony being limited to five minutes – it was still expected to require more than one session in order to hear everyone.
However, according to L J World, some leaders amongst the Kansas House believe that even if HR6021 should pass, the resolution wouldn’t have any effect on the Federal law. “It’s just a statement,” said Rep. Mario Goico, R-Wichita.
“It doesn’t change anything other than make a statement on what the position of the House is.”Details
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
Missouri’s HB:1534, also known as the Federal Health Care Reform Law, declares the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unauthorized by the United States Constitution. Furthermore, language utilized in the bill creates criminal penalties for persons enforcing or attempting to enforce the act…
According to Article 1 of the Missouri Constitution, the purpose of the government is to protect the rights and property of the people, and that neither other states nor the general government has the right to regulate their internal affairs. So it seems pretty clear that Missouri Government isn’t supposed to allow tyranny to proceed unchecked, but should be working to protect its citizens from the abuses of Big Government. Because of this, passionate supporters of HB:1534 spoke at a recent hearing not only about the unconstitutionality of the Federal Health Care Reform Law, but that Missouri citizens shouldn’t be required to accept health care that includes provisions that they are morally or religiously opposed to. Additionally, there was the thought that people should be free to opt out of certain services and providers. Testifying for the bill were Representative Bahr; James Coyne, Mid-Missouri Patriots; Ron Calzone, Missouri First; and Missouri Right to Life.
However, those who opposed HB:1534 noted that access to affordable health care is vital to people living with certain diseases, such as AIDS and HIV. And rather than encourage individual responsibility, such opposition believed that robust Governmental measures are necessary in order to protect life and prevent the further transmission of dangerous diseases. Testifying against the bill was Gretchen Waddell of the Missouri AIDS Task Force.
Meanwhile, others like Dave Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri, noted that when the United States Constitution was ratified, several states demanded that certain rights be protected, such as a state’s ability to reject certain federal actions.
As a result, the Committee on General Laws voted “do pass” by a vote of 5 to 4 on March 29, 2012.Details
After having been reviewed multiple times since January 31st 2011, the Pennsylvania Senate passed Senate Bill 10 (SB10) by a vote of 29-19. The bill is a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania which would prohibit any government from requiring the Pennsylvanians to buy health insurance. It states, in part –
“no law shall be enacted requiring a person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage”
Pennsylvania Senate District 25’s Joseph B. Scarnati is the prime sponsor of the bill which still requires a vote by the General Assembly’s House of Representatives. Once fully passed by both houses, it can be placed on the ballot for a statewide referendum.
Already, ten states have passed similar bills, commonly referred to as the Health Care Freedom Act. With the current SCOTUS review of Obamacare, this action along with many others currently in process in other states, sends a clear message that Americans are not content with the Federal Government encroaching on their liberties.
The amendment, if approved by the people of Pennsylvania, would also prevent the federal government from imposing fines or penalties against people who don’t buy insurance — up to 2.5 percent of household income.Details
New Jersey A861 would render the federal “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” null and void in the state. Sponsored by Assemblywoman Alison L. McHose, this bill not only voids the insurance mandate, it declares the entire act null and void within the state.
“This bill renders the federal “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Pub.L.111-148, as amended by the federal “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” Pub.L.111-152, and any federal rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, null and void and of no force and effect in the State of New Jersey.”
A861 currently sits in the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee. Your help is needed to get it moving towards a floor vote (action steps below)
BASIS FOR THE BILL
The bill itself provides the rational for nullification, based on the Tenth Amendment:Details