Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Idaho Legislator Says Constitution Allows State To Reject Obamacare

February 4, 2011 by  

Idaho legislator says Constitution allows state to reject ObamacareLawmakers in Idaho are working on legislation that would declare President Barack Obama's healthcare law "null and void," claiming that the 10th Amendment grants individual states the final word on enforcing policies.

State Senator Monty Pearce (R-New Plymouth), the sponsor of the bill, said that he will introduce the proposal next week. However, Idaho's attorney general said that the bill would not hold up in court, which has caused some Republicans to think twice about their support for a "null and void" motion.

"My concern is the separation of powers," said State Senator Curt McKenzie (R-Nampa), quoted by FOX News. "There are ways to address this issue, but this isn't the right path."

The media outlet reported that at least six other states are mulling over similar bills, but they will wait to see the fate of Idaho's attempt. The Gem State is one of 26 states — spearheaded by Florida — that signed on to a Federal lawsuit against Obamacare. On Jan. 31, a judge ruled in favor of the states and declared the healthcare law unConstitutional. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Idaho Legislator Says Constitution Allows State To Reject Obamacare”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • newspooner

    Obamacare is unconstitutional and can be declared null and void by the states. Obamacare is unconstitutional because it is communism, and communism is unconstitutional.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      Communism per se is not unconstitutional if “we the people” formally adopt it by amendment or otherwise co-opt it. It is not mentioned in the Constitution, thus it is not specifically unconstitutional. But, since we haven’t as yet formally or informally adopted Communism–yet–republicanism still guides America. Thank God for that. It is up to us to ensure that socialism, communism and all other forms of tyranny are never foisted upon us or otherwise adopted by us. If that were to occur, the Republic, of course, is dead.

      • marvin

        Jim Delaney
        problum with your statement is we have 3 branches of goverment judical/exe/ leg/[congress/president/ sup court] and a constutition that gives we the people the power over all three, the states have all power not given to the federal gov by the constitutionthen the fed,the fed has vary limited power that they abuse by over
        stepping their constitutional authority,that is why we have election,every 2/4/6 years if i had my way no one in goverment would be appointed to serve for life,like fed judge,s at all levels as far as term limits we have them now,it,s called voting,we are a republic,i don,t need anyone tell me what to eat or drink or drive or when i sleep or what to do,i have a god given right to live or die with out a lot of goverment interference i know right from wrong good from bad and was educated back when a lot of todays history was being made 40/50/60/70/ i lived thru most of the 40[was a child] all the 50/60/70/80/90 and can tell you we the american people well only give the goverment just enuf rope to hang them self and we will not give in or up, long live the republic,if you don,t like what the goverment is doing show them get off your ass stop bitching and join people of like minded,for a few numberusa, tea party, heritage foundation right to work, freedom foundation,and lots more,it is your duty to stand and be counted

        • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

          “we the people”–not SCOTUS–are the final arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. If we and our states don’t exercise that sacred duty, then we have only ourselves to blame. And I, for one, refuse to be silent. Nullify!

        • Mac

          Jim, I liked everything you said except the way you said it; you comments are difficult to read. It would really give your words more authority if you would avoid the misspellings (in the name of brevity I assume), and punctuate properly. Commas and apostrophes are not interchangeable. Start your sentences with capitalized words.

          To repeat, I agree with everything you said that I could decipher.

        • Mac

          Correction: all my comments were meant for Marvin, not Jim.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Mac,
            i have been reading Marvins posts here for about six months give or take a couple of months. I can decifer them without too much trouble because I actually try. Perhaps you are too persnickety and feel yourself to be a grammer, spelling, and punctuation police. Those things are not half as important as the idea behind them!

      • Vigilant

        Jim,

        “Communism per se is not unconstitutional if “we the people” formally adopt it by amendment or otherwise co-opt it. It is not mentioned in the Constitution, thus it is not specifically unconstitutional.”

        The principle of universal health care (and its requirement that individuals purchase a commercial product) is not mentioned in the Constitution either, but that does not mean it’s constitutional.

        This is a view once iterated by Teddy roosevelt, and has/is being tried by the leftists to circumvent the constitutional restrictions on federal government. He said, effectively, that if the Constitution didn’t specifically prohibit the feds from doing something, then they could do it.

        Nothing could be further from the truth. Powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the states and/or the people. See the 10th Amendment sprcifically.

        This ass-backwards interpretation

        • Vigilant

          Cont’d:

          has done much more harm than good.

          BTW, communism is indeed unconstitutional since it could only be imposed by the federal government, and that is not one of the specified powers.

        • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

          Don’t see where we are in disagreement. If a fed act/law is unconstitutional, or otherwise not intended by the framers, then it falls on us to nullify, or otherwise void it. Anything is constitutional if it’s not resisted.

          • vicki

            If a law is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional from its very inception. This is a well understood point of constitutional law. Some law may be enforced as though it were constitutional until voided by the Supreme Court for instance. When a law is found unconstitutional it is rendered null and void. Anyone who is paying a penalty (like being in jail) must be released and their record expunged.

      • vicki

        Communism is an economic philosophy and as such does not violate the constitution. Obamacare is not communism. Obamacare IS unconstitutional and has already been ruled such. It is unconstitutional because it gives the federal government the power to force individuals to buy a product. Nowhere in the Constitution has such a power been authorized to the Federal Government. Not even the most extreme rationalizations of the commerce clause can make such a power something the FedGov can do.

        Now about communism. Should the entire populace of the US decide to make a big commune there is no constitutional authority to block us. If we try to pass a law to force the people who don’t want to be in the commune to be in it THEN that law will be in violation of the Constitution (1st amendment btw).

        So if 51% of the population wants to make a big compound and uses their own land and or money they are welcome to it. Just don’t ask the 49% to help in any way. Been tried many times. Are there any communes of any size bigger than single families still operating?

        Obamacare is effectively trying to force all of us pay for that supposed 51% which is why it is unconstitutional.

  • Ted Crawford

    While I understand the frustration the various States are feeling, I feel it strongly myself, with this outragious usurpation of our Constitution, I don’t think we do ourselfs any credit by adopting the ugly tactics of the progressives. Miss use of our Constitution, by either side is totally unacceptable!

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      Nullification is, in the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the “rigtful remedy” to federal overreach. Sober and principled reliance upon nullification per the 9th and 10th amendments is entirely constitutional. In fact, Jefferson made it perfectly clear that it is not only our responsibility, but, indeed, our “duty” to nullify unconstitutional federal overreach, this to safeguard constitutional order and the union. Idaho lawmakers are duty-bound to void unconstitutional usurpations by any branch of the federal gov’t, inclusive of the judiciary. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the feds–and most certainly NOT the courts–and not the states. And remember too that the framers held that “we the people” are the final arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, again not the feds nor the states. Maintaining constitution order and a proper balance of power was the central goal of the framers.

      • Conservatives United

        Jim, Very well stated. This idea today that that the Federal Gov’t is supreme, must STOP. The states and the people have allowed this for too long, and now are starting to fight back to take back our Constitutional Rights.

        • J.M.R.

          BOY YOU HIT THAT NAIL SQUARE ON THE HEAD

      • JC in CA

        Thank Jim, but here is a ‘sticky’ part of the legislation…The 16th amendment, valid or not, it’s in the document…allowing the congress to raise and levy taxes…which is what the obummer amendment is…just another amendment to the tax code….so the question is…Does the Tax code allow the goons to take your money for NOT buying insurance? what do the goons in D.C. do to companies or self employed peeps Social Security Payments are not taken out of incomes?

        is what would follow some nasty letters and phone calls I am sure.

        • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

          The individual mandate required a fee, not a tax. Therein lies the problem with the Administration’s case. They tried to back-track saying it was a tax, thus constitutional, this despite the fact they’d gone out of their way to politically induce the public to believe it wasn’t a tax but a fee. They’re trapped in their own spin. Didn’t work this time.

  • http://www.davidsfloors.com David

    All states should use the 10th amendment when they can. States too timid. Should reestablish 10TH while we have this Supreme Court.
    Federal government was never supposed to be this huge and still growing.
    States and all the Republicans must join to stop it.

    • Bruce D.

      I agree David. The States need to start testing the Federal Government if possible with the 10th Amendment. We need these kinds of tests to see if we still have a 10th Amendment or a Constitution that can limit government in anyway. Obamacare is a good test of that and an indication whether the Constitution has any value at all anymore.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      ABSOLUTELY! As a condition of their ratification, the states added the 9th and 10th amendments, this to safeguard constitutional order and the balance of power. Timidity in defense of liberty and the Constitution is irresponsible and destructive of republican principles. You are right. Folks and the States which represent them must reacquaint themselves with the Constitution and our founding principles, and they must unerringly and consistently assert their constitutional rights, failing which the Constitution and our liberties are dead.

    • Bear

      Good thoughts David. The 10th amendment was put in place for a reason and up till now, we haven’t really had to exercise it. So, like a part of the body that has not been used, our ability to use it when needed will be weak at best. We are going to have to understand that most of our politicians are in fact, litigators, lawyers, people who have worked hard with their profession to overturn things that we know should never have been overturned. These are the true enemies of the Republic that our framers created. If we take to measures such as we are seeing right now in Egypt, things here could be very ugly because WE HAVE the ability to to resist. We have guns and that is what these political leaders who lean toward Marxism and Communism are fearful of. They need to understand that for the most part, we are the most civilized populace on the planet by virtue of our ability to accomplish things through our rights to vote. Should that ever change, we have the ability to rise up with arms and take back our freedoms just as our founding fathers did with England. The government needs to know that we prefer the ballot to the bullet but the bullet will never be ruled out.

      • JC in CA

        De Leon of Los Angeles tried very hard. He and his team brought that infringing legislation re: ammunition sales. Ugh, these usurpers are in the states as well. We had to rely on a Fresno Judge to rule the law unconstitutional….

        Hey, here’s a concept….’All legislation should be Constitutionally challenged PRIOR to the bill even approaching capitol hills’

  • Harry Sothern

    Obamacare isn’t about Healthcare – it’s a power grab for Obama and the Dems in congress that will change America from “We the People” to “We the Government”
    Aanything is worth a try to put a stop to this Nightmare bill!

    Hope you succeed Idaho!

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      The feds have been emasculating the States for over a hundred years. In so doing, they have posed a clear and present danger to the Republic’s stability. Continuing to obsequiously allowing them to rough shod over the Constitution and the rights of the States and the People is a a recipe for disaster.

  • Russell

    The fed judge said it is unconstituional. then how can an att.general of the state say different?

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      Answer: Parochial politics and unpardonable ignorance of the Constitution.

      Far too many legal eagles today have relied upon errant and corrupted case law and blatantly faulty Supreme Court rulings rather than the Constitution itself. Therein lies the problem. The Constitution is the law of the land, not the litany of revisionist case law foisted upon the Republic since the Constitution’s ratification. Today’s lawyers “learn” about case law, and precious little about the Constitution itself.Without a clear understanding of the framers’ intent and the original meaning of the Constitution, we’re all in trouble.

      • Jeep

        Jim, exactly right. This latest judgment is the fourth court to rule (two for and two against.) This judge was the first to actually cite the Constitution and writings of several of the founding fathers. Imagine that, basing a court decision on the Constition. Kinda boggles the mind.

        Unfortunately, the Fla judge did not put a stay on implementation of the law, relying instead on the implied ruling that the administration should halt implementation until the SC could rule. But, in true liberal fashion the judge was lambasted as a “judicial activist” (obviously libs don’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot) and are refusing to comply with the implied order.

      • JC in CA

        Exactly Jim, so much emphisis is placed on precident….’well, it happened there and then….so it’s got to happen here, now’

        This mentality and complete deterrence from the Constitution is the meltdown of our society and our republic.

        I vote for reviving the ‘Tar n Feathering’ of these criminals and liars in our courts…activist judges and their ilk. Heck, you don’t even have to be a Judge these days to sit on the Supreme Court. You just need to write the briefs that hide a presidential eligibility requirements….ooopsie.

        JC

        • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

          Thomas Jefferson regarded SCOTUS as an unchecked, unaccountable, unelected “judicial oligarchy” which threatens constitutional order. He even recommended an amendment involving oversight by both fed and state authorities in order to reign in these black-robed elitists. There’s so much to be done and undone. So much.

    • Conservatives United

      What seems to be overlooked in his ruling, by the Lame Stream Media, the White House, and all the rest of the radical left, is the Florida judge DID NOT STAY HIS RULING, until the appeal process is complete. That means that until his ruling is overturned, his ruling has the force of law, yet the states are continuing the process of moving forward on implimentation of this disasterous piece of legislation.

  • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

    There is so much needless confusion on this subject. Asserting Jefferson’s “rightful remedy” to federal overreach, that being nullification”, is hardly a progressive “tactic” or in any way unconstitutional. The framers carefully crafted a plan of republican governance which ensured the co-equality of the federal and state authorities, this to prevent the union’s dissolution and the loss of liberty. Those powers specifically granted to the feds (Art. 1, Sec 8)were carefully counterbalanced by those reserved to the States per the 9th and 10th Amendments. These amendments were added to the Constitution by the states as a condition of ratification. Remember that it was BOTH Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who manifestly espoused the rightful principle of nullification, which, of course, is NOT the same as secession, the latter being the ultimate remedy should nullification and civil disobedience fail to maintain constitutional order. Folks need to read the Constitution, the federalist papers and the ratification debates to understand that the priniciple of nullification is a cornerstone principle of our Constitution, this to safeguard a balance of powers and to protect ‘we the people’ from tyranny. Idaho lawmakers are 100% correct on this score. The framers did not intend that the powers of the feds (executive, legislative OR judicial) were to be supreme. The Constitution and “we the people” ARE supreme, and the framers left it to us to checkmate federal overreach.If a court rules that a state’s right to nullify unconstitutional laws, fiats, executive orders, the court ruling should be summarily nullified. It’s that simple. Nullification has never been the problem. Federal overreach has.

    • James

      Jim D., I agree except for the federal laws not being superior to state law. Article VI states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…” When federal law is enacted pursuant to the powers that were delegated to Congress in Art. I, Sec. 8, it is most certainly the supreme law of the land.
      The question here, is whether the federal healthcare law was within the powers that were granted to Congress.

      • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

        “which shall be made in pursuance thereof” is the operative phrase in the clause. if the law is not in keeping with the Constitution, it is not in “pursuance thereof” and is, therefore, UNconstitutional. hardly the supreme law of the land. We the People and the Constitution we ratified are the supreme law of the land. Read “Supremacy Clause Menace” on NY Tenth Amendment Center for a more thorough analysis of the REAL meaning of the supremacy clause which has been brutally and cavalierly misinterpreted by the left.

        • James

          Jim D., I believe that’s what I said. Read it again.

        • James

          Jim D., The U.S. Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, it just created the federal government.

  • http://www.cafepress.com/TradThoughts UnPCdMom

    Maybe each state can require that every member of the new Obamacare board (which will review care, and decide which tests, medicines and procedures are approved ) be licensed doctors that are certified in their state. Every board member required to be actively tested and licensed in ALL 50 states BEFORE they decide care for even ONE patient! Then the states can put to trial all of those practicing medicine without a license.

    BTW- what do you call a person who graduated medical school at the bottom of the class? Sadly you call them Doctor :( Obamacare does absolutely NOTHING to encourage more medical students or medical schools. Obamacare will drive quality care down and bring prices way up, its like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      Tragically, the law is not only unconstitutional, it is a terribly flawed piece of socialist legislation will add huge costs to healthcare while dramatically reducing the quality of care. When an alien political ideology rules the roost in DC, the entire country is in dire straights. It’s the duty of the States to boldy interpose between the feds and the people to safeguard ou liberty and the balance of power. If the States refuse to nullify, the Constitution and the best healthcare in the world is doomed. This Prez and his Progressive, aka socialist, minions have done more to implode this Republic than any other force in our history. He is doing what no alien invader could ever have done. It’s time to push back.

      • Bear

        Good points Jim. The part of Obamacare that really is interesting is the part about “Death Pannels” an “pre-death planning. Does anyone get what that is all about? This tid bit is telling us, subsequent to the fact that under Obamacare, the Federal government has the right to decide, based upon your age and your health, whether or not to give you medical care and treatement to allow you to continue living. How about that? Obamacare gives the government the final word on your existance on this planet. Most people don’t understand that at all. This also means that at any given point the government can decide to terminate your life because you are costing the government too much money. This decision could be made because they feel they have paid too much to you in Social Security benefits or Medicare benefits or both. Is anyone starting to understand the depth of this intrusion into our freedoms? This piece of legislative crap MUST be destroyed. AND the legislators who supported it……starting with Queen Pelosi must be forever banned from ever having anything to do with our country’s future. These people, in my estimation, are the domestic enemy.

  • James

    The idea that the 10th Amendment gave states the power to reject federal laws is just stupid. The amendment is simply a part of the Bill of Rights. It reminds Congress that “powers not delegated to the United States” (i.e., the federal government) “are reserved to the States respetively, or to the people.” The powers that were delegated to the federal government are enumerated in Article I, Section 8 (eight). Power over the nation’s healthcare was never delegated to the feds, it was reserved to the states or the people.
    The 10th Amendment did not give the states power to reject federal law with which they disagree. If a federal law has gone beyond the powers which were delegated to Congress, it can be declared unconstitutional by a federal court when a citizen, or a state, files a suit therein and so-challenges it. (Remember, the States existed before the national government. When the States created the federal government, only certain powers were delegated to it. “Delegated to” means ‘granted to’ by the States.
    The ignorance of constitutional law here is appalling. Let’s take a survey: How many people believe the federal government is limited to the enumerated powers in Art. I, Sec. 8 (that’s ‘eight’)?

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      Hate to put a ding in your day, James, but that was precisely the meaning and purpose of the 9th and 10th Amendments. As a condition of ratification, the states added those amendments to the Constitution to ensure co-quality between the feds and the states, and to prevent the dissolution of the union and the loss of liberty. The amendments are as much a part of the Constitution as the enumerated powers in Art 1, Sec 8. The 10th ABSOLUTELY gives the States not only the right, but the DUTY to interpose between the feds and people is any law, edict,ruling or fiat is UNconstitutional. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of all that is and is not constitutional. We the People are, in fact and by original design, the final arbiters. Of course, the Constitution and constitutional order cannot be safeguarded if we the people don’t affirmatively do so.

      • James

        Jim D., Your bias, and ignorance, here is showing. The 9th and 10th amendments were not contingents on adopting the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Government was created in 1789, and the powers that were delegated to it, in Art. I, Sec. 8, made no mention of rights. It was assumed, by the Founders, that since no power over rights was there, that would be sufficient. But many States feared that such powers might be construed to include rights, a Bill of Rights restrictions was needed, which was then added in 1791. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads, in its first paragraph:

        ‘THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

        The 9th Amendment says the restrictive theme of the Bill of Rights applies to all rights, whether enumerated therein or not. And the 10th Amendment simply reminds Congress that powers not delegated to Congress “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

        The powers not delegated to Congress are all powers except those that are specifically listed in Art. I, Sec. 8.

      • James

        Jim D., the powers of federal and state governments do not overlap. The States may not override federal laws they disagree with. If a federal law has gone beyond the feds powers, the remedy is to have that repealed via a federal lawsuit that so-proclaims.
        States are more powerful than the federal government, because they retained more powers than they delegated to the national government. But they must honor federal laws that are within the boundary of federal legislation.

  • rosina

    Agree with most of the posters.
    As Jim Delaney says,it IS time to push back.
    Most of the ‘RUIN HEALTHCARE” is NOTHING to do with health care at all.
    If it really were the first thing it would do is to stop the frivolous lawsuits and finally do something about TORT REFORM.
    What has a ‘new army’ got to do with health?
    What are ‘death panels’ to do with health?
    Why is Congress exempt from all laws passed?
    IT IS TIME TO REALLY GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION AND FORCE THE SUPREME COURT TO DO THEIR DUTY–INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION ONLY. NOT MAKE NEW LAWS WHICH IS THE PROVINCE OF THE LEGISLATURE.
    AS FOR EXECUTIVE ORDERS, ARE THEY MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

  • JC in CA

    Um hello, don’t we ALL know that ‘obummer care’ bill was just another amendment to the U.S. Tax Code? you know that monstrosity 30′ tall of some 250 REAMS of paper that is stiffling our nation to death only to enrich the oh-so very few?

    Our founders conceived our Constitution very well, however, the evil-doers in our illustrious past have basterdized it many times.

    We the people will survive

  • JLC

    The 10th Amendment states that, “All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    • JLC

      Afterthought: My copy of the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about Health Care.

    • James

      JLC, That’s my point precisely, read my above comments.

      • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

        James, you’re chasing your tail on this. The right and DUTY of the States to void unconstitutional laws is embedded in the Constitution. Were that not the case, why have a Constitution at all. Just let the feds do as they please, all in the name of the “constitution”, of course. What the constitution means is not always what our politically and ideologicall driven “reps” in DC say it means. SO much for contracts, if one party can dictate the terms and meaning. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were very clear about this.

        • James

          Jim D., You are misreading my comments. The 10th Amendment did not give States the power to challenge federal law. That amendment simply said that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States and the people. That is, States retained all the powers that were not delegated to the national government. If the feds pass a law that is beyond the powers it has in Art. I, Sec. 8, States can certainly challenge it in federal court and have it declared unconstitutional. But they can’t just ignore it.

  • CJM

    The US Supreme Court has already declared that laws which are vague are unconstitutional…yet I see not one of the individual States or their attorneys general using that ruling in their effort to declare Obamacare as null and void in their State. Obamacare is so vague and confusing that, according to the US Supreme Court rulings of the past, people find it difficult to understand–and oddly enough, even Pelosi and Reid admit this fact. If no one has attempted to (or even read) read that 2700+ albatross, you would find that it is confusing and vague. On that score alone, Obamacare cannot stand.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      For nullification to be effectual, it must be tenaciously asserted. If one fails to assert one’s rights, he loses them. Only a determined nullification act has any force.

  • marvin

    one off are founding fathers said, to give up your liberty for security you have nether liberity or security

    • JC in CA

      Benjamin Franklin and its …deserve neither’…

      oh, and what emergency room would help you if you fell off a rock mountain climbing, or trail riding, or smear the q****….activities that the death panels most certainly will catagorize as un-covered.

  • Gerrold in CA

    James, JLC & JC,

    The interpretation of the 10th Amendment is irrelevant. The popularity tide from citizens to nullify Obamacare is growing. We all have seroius doubts Obamacare will ever be implemented.

    As a right wing Tea Partier and all what’s frustrating is my side of the political fence has come with very little input on how we can obtain affordable health care. As a business owner I can tell you that health care costs (including workmans comp) are crushing this economy. Understandably we are against Obamacare but what’s our solutions?

    • JC in CA

      Tort reform and banishing frivolous lawsuits are good places to start.
      My gut says ‘Ambulance Chasers’ in the late 1700′s were beat back away once the liar, um lawyer, opened his mouth.

      Just as recently with Kucinich’s busted tooth….SUING the cafateria for $150k !! Really?!. So some gub’ment lawyer was retained to ‘protect’ the cafe, Kucinich had his goons going after them…all getting their piece of some ‘undisclosed settlement’…it all stinks to high Heaven.

      We all know all Olives have pits in the begining…just as fish have bones…things we don’t want to ingest. I guess his mamma didn’t teach him the life lesson of being tentative when biting into this type of food. Poor sad sap….but now we should feel better that his chunk of change , on our shoulders, is quantitively easing his pain.

      JC

      • Gerrold in CA

        JC – A great start. I elect you to write the new health care legislation :-))

      • http://?? Joe H.

        JC,
        At least Ohio has made a step in the right direction. If you don’t shovel your walk in the winter time and somebody falls, the state has ruled you can’t be sued. They said common sense tells you that snow and ice are (gasp!) slippery!!! Who’d a thunk it? The state government speaking of common sense!!!

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      The 10th Amendment–like the COnstitution itself–is irrelevant ONLY if we fail to uphold it by exercising our rights and duties as clearly provided.

      • Gerrold in CA

        Jim – The 10th amendment is very important. I was only applying that definition (interpreting) of the 10th amendment throughout this discussion board was irrelevant at this time since most likely will never have to be used on the health care issue. Seems populus momentum will dust off ObomaCare.

        • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

          Sure hope you’re right, but I have that gnawing feeling we’ll be rudely awakened once again. We have to be prepared to unyieldingly nullify.

          • Gerrold in CA

            I agree Jim.

            If the left is able to hang on and staff off the people’s momentum to push congress to repeal Obamacare, and the Supreme Court does not deem umconstitutional, we will have no choice but to invoke the 10th amendment state-by-state. Long tough road to hoe. Not sure any states have the stones to make this happen. Even Idaho has it’s opposition leaders trying to stop the legislature from persuing this course of action. The Idaho attorney general has already threatened to invalidate any legislation invoking the 10th.

            What’s missing is an alternative legislation. I beleive Obamacare would be dust if we only had a better piece of legislation to sell in it’s place? Sorry to say but us Elephants have dropped the ball, and I haven’t seen where the Independants nor Tea Party has offered any solutions either. And man, we need some sort of health care cost solution !!!

  • marvin

    i say rome was not built in a day and obama care can and will be defeated by law in the courts or by defunding it let your hearts not be heavy there,s more of us uneducated redneck that belive in freedom and god and the limited power of the fed then the news people know they can call us teabagger airheads or what ever, but the game is not won by talk and name calling,this only the first quarter,first you do is talk [if they don,t respond]then you tell them[here is the way it will be] then you kickass, you got to break some eggs to make an omlet

  • Freedom-Will-Prevail

    The Liberals and progressives that were and have been elected, probably illegaly and put in to congress, see that the American people as pawns, nothing more than to their progressive agenda. They think that by not listening to their constituants, they can ram through what they want, and the American People will accept it, with no big deal. The Senate had a dog and pony show for the American people, to show that the progressive and liberal demo-(craps) are going to not listen to the American People. They made a big thing in the House to show the American People that they were going to repeal the healthcare law. They knew it would die in the senate. Now they say it’s up to the courts. What are they doing for us. The Liberal judges are not enforcing the constitution, They have are ready proved that. Now they say it’s up to the Supreme Court. Come on now….. Give me a break. So called Justice Kagen is not going to recuse herself. It’s going to be another dog and pony show again. Even if she does recuse herself. It shouldn’t be up to the Supreme Court. Why not put it to a vote of the “American People”, Or our we that stupid by “congress’s eyes” that we can’t vote yes or no to keep it or get rid of it. I know the liberals or SIU will rig the voting machines like they did in Nevada. Are we that dumb? Wake up America, The Unions, the progressives and the liberals run America.

  • Bert Cundle

    Amendments nulify Constitution ( “Good” Destroyed buy Law! ) That also destroyes any defense against the state over control.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      Amendments DON’T nullify (i.e. render null and void) the Constitution. They supplement, re-interpret or change the Constitution, but the latter, with the amendments, is still the bedrock of our Republic.

  • Bert Cundle

    GOVERNMENT = IN CONTROL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Public, Citizens, The People, All = CONTROLED BY GOVERNMENT!!! With-out a Title or Badge… You loose!

  • Robert

    we are like pigs going to slaughter. we follow who is in front of us saying they must know what is right for us, without looking ahead at what is going on ahead of us. a leader will stand up and refuse to be pushed into something that is not right. the american people know what the constitution says but they think that the supreme court dictates what it means, but that is where everything goes south. the south knew what the north was up to and left the union, and lincoln went to war even though preident buchanan agreed that fort sumpter was to go to the south. lincoln was told that he had to leave sumpter but would not and forced the south to take it back. the states had the right to leave the union at any time. so that shows how violation of the constitution leads to bad things. the south knew that remaining in the union would be detremental to their sovrignity. and that is when we started down the road to governmental rule rather then the people rule. do you not love it that you see what happened and do not recognize the evil being perpetrated on you. the government that governs least governs best.

  • Robert

    by the way you should all read the politically incorrect history of the supreme court.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      I did, and it’s quite a wake-up call. Jefferson was correct by calling the Supreme Court an unelected, unaccountable “judicial oligarchy”. Anyone who can objectively reason that whatever the courts say is sacred,, in keeping with teh Constitution and beyond reproach, are delusional. All branches of the federal gov’t must be properly and rigorously checked by the States and we the people.

  • hbmac

    The constitution with the supremacy clause was ratified in 1787.
    The founders saw a problem in the constitution in the way it was written, hence the bill of rights (the first ten admendments)were added and ratified in 1791.
    I believe congress at that time should have gone further in addresing
    the supremacy clause with in the the ninth and tenth admendment but that did’nt happen. The supremacy clause should only be used in all cases of the original enumerated powers granted to the general government.
    Madison in his writings expressed a great consern of the possibility
    of federal over reach intruding on the states to the lowest level of state government, but Madison,Jefferson,Hamilton and other founders
    were against the idea of nulification by the states. Washington as well as Jackson moved federal troops against Pennsyvania and Georgia
    when these states tried to ignore federal law.
    There is a website called Wallbuilders that has links to information
    on the early history of the Constitution and the founders – well worth the reading.

    • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

      The Supremacy Clause, as deliberately and clearly written by the framers, did not grant supremacy to the federal gov’t in all matters constitutional. Fed laws, regs, fiats are constitutional only insofar as they are in keeping the feds’ enumerated powers (Art 1, Sec 8). No branch and certainly not the States are supreme in our constitutional republic. The system was carefully crafted to ensure co-quality, a balance of power, among the fed branches and between the federal gov’t and the states. Nullification IS a cornerstone of that co-quality. Jefferson described nullification as the “rightful remedy” to federal overreach. Madison agreed, as did most of their colleagues. They saw it as the most effectual and peaceful remedy to federal overreach/tyranny, thus eliminating any need for secession and the dissolution of the union.

    • Gerrold in CA

      Yes hbmac, back in the day the feds moved against these 2 states. However, in today’s time line there are many states which ignore fed laws and I’m thinking Obama is not moving our military against any of them. Since WWII the Feds use the judicary process to keep states in line, if that doesn’t work they withhold federal funding. Obamacare has financial triggers in place to keep states in line.
      We have to wonder if the states that are threatening nullification are not just placating their constituents. When it comes down to losing fed funding, I think these states will fold.

      • http://opinerlog.blogspot.com Jim Delaney

        Most Americans would rather lose a few a pieces of silver than their liberties. The States’ power lies with the people, and if the people are unwilling to trade $ for liberty, the feds lose.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Jim D.
          I want to find a way to keep most of the silver and ALL of the rights!!!!

  • s c

    ABORT Obummer’s healthcare SCAM on the altar of CHOICE. The price of Obummer’s healthcare SCAM is FREEDOM.
    How can any adult NOT understand that?

  • http://charden@neo.rr.com Charles

    Repeal Obama care,and cut the spending.

  • Dr. smith

    ” Idaho’s attorney general said that the bill would not hold up in court, which has caused some Republicans to think twice about their support for a “null and void” motion.”

    geeee, another sold out piece of human refuse in a three piece suit pushing the Obama agenda.

    the 10th amendment is absolutely clear: THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE US BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

    There’s nothing in the Constitution requiring mandated health insurance for All.

    Simple, clear, as intended by the founders. Lets not let some corrupt attorney twist the meaning and pervert it to fit the socialist agenda. If so, the attorney general needs to be thrown out on his lily white ars!!

    If We the People can uphold the Supreme Law of the land then we can ride out this assault on our freedoms. It will eventually fall on the shoulders of We the People.

    The tree of liberty must be
    refreshed from time to time with the blood of
    patriots and tyrants.
    Thomas Jefferson

  • Dr. smith

    tell the attorney general he/she needs to read the law:

    ObamaCare was rejected by Federal judge and using federal funds on it by HHS is a felony.

    the attorney general of Idaho must of missed that in Law school when he was at a communist rally denouncing the US as Imperialist.

    http://www.personalliberty.com/news/idaho-legislator-says-constitution-allows-state-to-reject-obamacare-800381470/#comment-354227

  • Robert

    did we forget truth

  • Sam

    Two Fed judges have said law is unconsttutional, two have said it is constitutional, and about a dozen other Fed judges won’t even hear it. They dismissed the suits out of hand.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.