Tag Archives | Tennessee Health Care Freedom Act

TN Health Care Freedom Act Resurrected

In a ninth inning push to protect Tennesseans from the penalty provisions of Obamacare, the state Senate made an unprecedented move to recall from committee SB2560, the companion bill to Rep. Susan Lynn’s Health Care Freedom Act (HB2622).  If passed, HB2622 will write into law a policy statement for all Tennesseans that health care mandates or penalties for defying such mandates may not be carried out in the state of Tennessee.  The bill is model legislation written by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in response to the passage of the federal health care mandate.

Two other Health Care Freedom Acts that would have protected Tennesseans from the penalty provisions of the new federal health care mandate were defeated in the Budget Subcommittee of the House Finance, Ways & Means committee last week.  One was an amendment to the state constitution (HJR745 by Rep. Susan Lynn) and the second was a bill that had already passed the Senate (HB3433/SB3498 by Rep. Mike Bell and Sen. Mae Beavers).

After last week, Rep. Lynn’s HB2622 is the only Health Care Freedom bill left standing, having successfully maneuvered its way through the House committees to the House floor, but Sen. Diane Black had not run the companion bill in the Senate.  Because the Senate committees were already closed for this session, SB2560 had to be recalled from committee to the Senate floor.  The bill was originally scheduled for a vote in the Senate on Saturday, but due to the absence of Sen. Black, the bill was rolled to a later date.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE AND TAKE ACTION TODAY

Comments { 2 }

Constitutional Ignorance from the Tennessee AG

In an opinion released today on the Tennessee Health Care Freedom Act (HFA), State Attorney General Robert Cooper informs us that the Act is unconstitutional (and in essence, shouldn’t be passed by the legislature).

Here’s his argument, in short (read the full opinion here):

Congressional power to preempt state law arises from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supremacy Clause provides that the laws of the United States “shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding,” U.S. Const. art. 6, cl. 2.

He continues:

The Supremacy Clause results in federal preemption of state law when: (1) Congress expressly preempts state law; (2) Congress has completely supplanted state law in that field; (3) adherence to both federal and state law is impossible; or (4) the state law impedes the achievements of the objectives of Congress.

My first question to the AG is this – why did you leave the most important part of the “Supremacy Clause” out of your opinion….was it because you’re unaware of it, or were you intentionally trying to obfuscate and keep it out of the public discussion?

Reading the full clause should make clear to the reader why I ask this question:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

Interesting how Mr. Cooper didn’t include the absolute fact that for a federal law to be supreme, it must be a law made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution….the very limited powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, that is.

HFA 1, Cooper 0

Also in Cooper’s “Federal Law is Supreme” rant, the AG seriously takes the position that Federal Law is supreme, as he alluded, pretty much as long as Congress decides to be supreme. In essence, he’s claiming that Congress has a VETO power over state laws that conflict with it.

This is verification, to me, that the AG either is lying about his constitutional knowledge, or is simply unaware of the history of the Constitution’s ratification.

The REAL history of federal power is this – during the Constitutional Convention, members proposed what became known as the “Virginia Plan.” This, if it were approved, would have given Congress the power to veto state laws as it saw fit – and as the AG has claimed as well.

The problem though, for lovers of federal power (like the Attorney General of Tennessee) is this – the constitutional convention considered this plan, and rejected it.

HFA 2, Cooper 0

So what the AG is arguing for is something that the Founders said NO to. Instead, they created the Supremacy Clause, which made clear that federal law is supreme only when in line with the enumerated powers in the Constitution – not whenver they want, which is what he is, in essence, claiming.

Bottom line? Either he’s unaware of this plain and simple historical fact (as most State Attorney Generals are), or he’s obfuscating in order to stop this essential measure from being passed.

My guess on this would be…

Both.

Here’s the reality of the situation – the Constitution means what the Founders and Ratifiers told us it means, not what the Attorney General of Tennessee hopes it means.

HFA 3, Cooper 0

It’s my hope that the legislature of Tennessee will continue to show the courage they’ve been showing in recent history – with passage of the state sovereignty resolution and the Firearms Freedom act – and defy these blatant falsehoods from both Cooper and the Federal Government.

CLICK HERE – for Professor Brion McClanahan’s essay on the Supremacy Clause

CLICK HERE – for the Tenth Amendment Center’s Federal Health Care Nullification Act

Comments { 15 }