By Douglas V. Gibbs
A federal court in Virginia used Constitutional understanding to block President Barack Obama’s health regulation law. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson held that the Commonwealth of Virginia did not have to abide by the federal individual mandate that citizens must purchase health insurance. Hudson wrote: “Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America. … No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or the Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.”
In unison with Hudson's ruling, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said: “This lawsuit is not about health care, it’s about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land – the Constitution.”
So, in addition to the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to have anything to do with health care, the States are finding the details to be unconstitutional as well.
While unconstitutional, the language in the new law also makes it near impossible for Americans to even track, let alone check, federal power. The new health care law creates at least 47 new bureaucratic entities, a list of regulations, and yet somehow manages to claim it is deficit neutral.
And the only mechanism for checking the federal government's new bureaucracies regarding health care is with a research agency that is, well, a part of the federal government.
Meanwhile, in Missouri, the voters overwhelmingly rejected the mandate (that is supposed to begin penalizing Americans in 2014) that requires people to have insurance, winning with about 70% of the vote.
The article reporting this stated that the vote was seen as largely symbolic because federal law generally trumps state law. That is not true, if the federal law is unconstitutional. The State has the right of nullification, meaning that if the law is unconstitutional, they do not have to abide by it. Federal Law is only supreme over a State law if the Federal law is constitutional in the first place, meaning that the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to have such a law.
As for nullification, one may argue that the courts outlawed nullification in the 1800s. But if the judiciary can't make law, how could they make nullification illegal?
Legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana and Virginia have passed similar statutes, and voters in Arizona and Oklahoma will vote on such measures as state constitutional amendments in November.
This is how you defeat tyranny. . . one state at a time, declaring their state sovereignty, and standing up for the constitutional rights of the states, and We The People.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Another Victory on the Road to Repeal - The Heritage Foundation
Missouri Votes to Block Health Insurance Mandate - Fox News
No comments:
Post a Comment