Committed to the First Amendment and OUR Freedom of Speech since 2008
Nullification ... and the Cost of ObamaCare
Publisher's note: This is a two part series from our friend of many words, Diane Rufino. Here is our first part of the two part series on ObamaCare, and later Nullification as a remedy to this miscarriage of legislation by a completely thoughtless bunch - many of whom are no longer governing. The first instalment of this 2 part series was published here.
The US republic is unique. Government can pass no law or take no action unless the authority for such law or action is specifically granted in the Constitution. That is the essence of our limited government. It is also the understanding of the states when they signed the Constitution (a compact, or contract) and formed the American Union.
What happens when the government oversteps its constitutional powers? Well, initially we are instructed to let our constitutional system play out since our government has a clear separation of powers in its three branches and is designed with a series of checks and balances. Each of the branches is expected to act as a jealous guardian of its powers and responsibilities so that no other branch tries to intrude on the others.
When these procedural safeguards break down, then it is up to the States to take matters into their hands. The States, as sovereign entities, under our federalist system are the final check in the series of checks and balances. It is sovereign versus sovereign. Alexander Hamilton explained it best in Federalist Papers No. 26: "....The State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent."
Since the states can no longer control the Congress from within, as the Constitution originally provided in Article I, Section 3 by appointing Senators ("The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof..."), it's most effective, and "rightful," remedy is Nullification and Interposition. The answer is Nullification. This is the doctrine articulated by Thomas Jefferson which states that the Constitution, by word and by creation, empowers states to nullify laws passed by Congress. That is, it allows states to decide when laws passed by Congress have exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution and to rightfully declare that they are null and void and therefore unenforceable. The Constitution, through the Supremacy Clause of the Sixth Amendment, acknowledges the residuary sovereign powers that reside with the states to govern themselves and their citizens. Our system of federalism (embodied in the Tenth Amendment) empowers the States to stand up to the federal government. And the compact nature of our Constitution gives the States the legal authority. The states, as the parties to the Constitution, are the ones who rightfully can reign in the government in its application of that document. The States, as creators of the federal government, have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. In other words, the states are the rightful parties who can enforce the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolves of 1799: "That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a Nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY."
A similar doctrine, called Interposition, was advocated by James Madison and takes nullification one step further. It imposes a duty upon each state to intercede or insert itself (to step in) between its people and the government in order to prevent them from unconstitutional laws, executive policies, and even federal court decisions. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolves of 1798:
"The powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states (alone) are the parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants (of power) enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are duty-bound, to INTERPOSE for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them...."
As the Constitution's absolute sovereign creator, the People are not - and were never intended to be - subordinate to their creation, the federal government. The government was created as an agent, to both the States and the People. The people have final authority. An agent serves its master and never the other way around. The Constitution is merely "a description, (or memorialization), of those powers which the people have ultimately delegated to their Magistrates, to be exercised for definite purposes." The people therefore, according to Madison, are entitled to interposition by their State governments when their agent, the federal government, fails to conform with constitutional dictates. [Note: To make clear - the States spoke for the People through the State Conventions which were selected by the People].
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were enraged when the Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted in 1796 in response to the Quasi War with France. The Acts were designed to round up and deport aliens that the government deemed problematic and to detain and imprison those who dared to criticize, disparage, and malign members of the government (except the VP, who just happened to be Jefferson at the time!!) either in word or in print. They believed the laws were unconstitutional. Jefferson complained to Madison that both acts showed "no respect" for the Constitution. Madison called the Alien Act "a monster" that would "forever disgrace its parents," the Founders that demanded a limited government and a Bill of Rights. The two men corresponded about what remedy should be taken in response. They didn't trust the judicial review process for the Court at the time was dominated with Federalists, and it was the Federalists in Congress who passed the laws and it was the Federalist president, John Adams, who signed them into law and who didn't believe they offended the Constitution. In general, they didn't trust the Supreme Court to be the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. They also understood that an oppressive government would lead states or even parts of states to secede and that was an extreme situation that should be avoided as aggressively as possible. They concluded that it was up to the states to declare when acts of the government exceeded constitutional authority and then to declare them null and void. And so they came up with their doctrines of nullification and interposition.
The Alien and Sedition Acts prompted Madison and Jefferson to organize protests. They did so by drafting a series of resolutions that would be adopted by the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky to pronounce the unconstitutionality of the Acts. The resolutions that Madison authored were adopted in 1798 by the Virginia legislature and became the Virginia Resolves, while the resolutions that were drafted by Jefferson drafted were eventually adopted in modified form by the Kentucky legislature. (The Kentucky Resolves of 1798; another set of resolutions were adopted in 1799). In passing the resolutions, both legislatures expressed the judgment that the two federal laws were unconstitutional. The Kentucky Resolves stated that its purpose was to protest the Acts while the Virginia Resolves were more forceful. It declared that "necessary and proper measures will be taken" to maintain the authorities, rights, and liberties" of the States and the people and then appealed to the other states to join in the protest. The governor of Virginia was instructed to transmit copies of the Resolves to the other state legislatures in the hope that those bodies would adopt similar measures.
The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions highlight a grave flaw in the Constitution of 1787: the states did not explicitly provide or designate an umpire to settle disputes between the states and the central government. The Constitution is quiet on that subject. The Federalist Papers, the ultimate authority on the meaning and intent of the Constitution, only gives the Supreme Court the power to offer an "opinion" to the other branches and no binding authority. [Federalist No. 78 says the federal Judiciary "has no influence over either the SWORD or the PURSE (executive or legislative branches) .... It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment."]. It was the Supreme Court itself which redefined its powers in Marbury v. Madison (1803), vaulting its status to the final arbiter of the meaning and intent of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court is to remain the unchallenged ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, as the Court unanimously proclaimed in Cooper v. Aaron (358 U.S. 1 [1958]), then the caprice of the national government and not the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Clearly, if the national government is the judge of its own powers, it will construe them broadly and dispose of any hopes for limited government.
Thomas Jefferson wrote on this topic in 1820: "To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps - and their power is the most dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the Elective control. The Constitution has elected no single tribunal. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves."
He wrote again in 1821: "The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Jefferson warned in very strong terms that the federal judiciary is not to be trusted. He inferred that in the absence of a designated umpire, the parties to the compact are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution. His reasoning is sound and needs to be re-asserted, just as states are now re-asserting the doctrines of Nullification and Interposition.
We arguably have an unconstitutional law with Obamacare. Arguably, the government has overstepped its constitutional powers. It has over-stepped its bounds as a government of limited powers and one obligated to protect our Life, Liberty, and Property and not to attack those precious liberties. It simply doesn't have the authority to legislate for healthcare. That is a state function, under its state police powers (to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morality of its people). It is the same argument that Jefferson and Madison made with the Alien Act of 1796. Congress didn't have the constitutional authority to pass such legislation. Now, there may be some who will say that the government can use its taxing/spending powers to regulate for the "general welfare," but read further for my argument on the taxing power. Additionally, the "general welfare" clause refers to the people of the United States, in general, and not just certain groups of people. Everyone must be served, equally. With Obamacare, the poor and other uninsured are served. A 2011 census showed that 15% of Americans are living in poverty. There are additional people who are uninsured because they have been denied on account of pre-existing conditions. These people will benefit from Obamacare. But the young, healthy people forced into the system for no other reason than to provide the 'tax' revenue to support health insurance and care for the uninsured are not receiving a benefit but rather, a burden. The government is plundering their property.
Furthermore, Obamacare has abused its powers under the Commerce Clause (the power the administration gave for its authority to pass Obamacare), as the Supreme Court agreed. It has abused its powers under the taxing power as well, as Judge Andrew Napolitano has explained: "The ruling basically gives power on a platter to Congress - power that it never had before, power that it never exercised before. It sets a dangerous precedent for all sorts of non-action that government can place a tax on.... But this is the first time in the history of the country that the Court has permitted the Congress to tax people for doing nothing. To punish them for refusing to do what the government wants them to do. That is a very, very dangerous precedent."
We just need to walk through the steps to see if we've allowed our constitutional system the opportunity to work for us in stopping this unlawful act of Congress. Again, I am assuming, as a great many other intelligent, constitutionally-literate, and patriotic Americans are assuming, that Obamacare is unconstitutional both in the first instance (no power to legislate for healthcare) and under any other power in Article I (Commerce or Taxing/Spending):
(i) First, did the Separation of Powers stop the bad bill? No, it didn't. President Obama, head of the Executive branch, should not have signed the bill, passed by the Legislative branch, into law.
(ii) Did the people contact their representatives and did Congress respond to the peoples' wishes by repealing the bad bill? No, they did not. A gallop poll in February of this year showed that 72% of all Americans (including 56% of Democrats) believe the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional and want it struck down or repealed. These polls are no secret to members of Congress. Letters and calls are delivered constantly and protests have been held in Washington DC. Yet the House and the Senate (especially the Senate) has remained firm on the bill. Congress intends for it to stand.
(iii) Third, did the Supreme Court strike the unlawful bill down? No, it didn't.
(iv) Can the people fix the problem at the ballot box? That is still yet to be seen. Will this year's voters retire those representatives who have violated their oaths and failed to tie legislation to a legitimate source of constitutional authority? Will the new Congress repeal the bad bill?
Obamacare must be stopped. Government must be stopped. The unstoppable growth of government must be stopped. Obamacare will lead to an unprecedented growth in the number of agencies it will require to implement the program and then, perhaps, even incidental programs to keep people from needing healthcare. If President Obama is re-elected, or if Mitt Romney is elected and fails to repeal Obamacare, then the States must be prepared and willing to use Nullification and Interposition in order to protect the liberties of the American people which are secure only as long as the Constitution is faithfully adhered to.
Just like the early Americans who supported the unconstitutional acts of the Federalists, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, and did not question them, modern Americans have been dupes in forging their own chains. The chains have gotten stronger and have been fastened tighter. We are on the verge of losing the precious liberties and safeguards we were blessed with by our divinely-inspired Founders. We need a revival of the Spirit of 1776. We need to recapture the constitutional urgency that men like Jefferson and Madison felt in 1798 and 1800. And then we need to promote Nullification as never before and if need be, declare Obamacare null and void and make sure it is unenforceable upon the American people.
I'd like to believe what Thomas Jefferson said in 1799:
"The spirit of 1776 is not dead. It has only been slumbering. The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played on by some fact with more fiction; they have been the dupes of artful maneuvers, and made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves."
If anyone would like to support the Nullify Obamacare movement, please sign the petition with your state Tenth Amendment Center.
For example, if you live in NC, the site is - northcarolina.tenthamendmentcenter.com
If you live in Pennsylvania, the site is - pennsylvania.tenthamendmentcenter.com
If you live in Florida, the site is - florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com
And so on.
If anyone would like to help the NC Tenth Amendment Center bring a Nullify Now! tour to North Carolina, please purchase a ticket and donate - thepoint.com
References:
The IPAB - hoover.org
50 Dangers from Obamacare - coachisright.com
Rand Paul, "The Five Major Obamacare Taxes That Will Hit Your Wallet in 2013," FOX News, July 9, 2012. paul.senate.gov
Defunding Obamacare - blog.heritage.org
The 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare - blog.heritage.org
Companies Cut Jobs to Cut Healthcare Costs, FOX News - video.foxbusiness.com
Jonathon M. Siedl, "Pelosi Defends Obamacare Using the Declaration of Independence," The Blaze, March 22, 2012. Referenced at: theblaze.com
Christian Fritz, "Interposition and the Heresy of Nullification: James Madison and the Exercise of Sovereign Constitutional Powers," The Heritage Foundation, February 21, 2012. Referenced at: heritage.org [I, along with the Tenth Amendment Center, take issue with the thesis of this article]
Daniel Greenfield, "There Ain't No More Middle Ground," Sultan Knish, June 30, 2012. Referenced at: sultanknish.blogspot.com
Andrew Kirrell, "Judge Napolitano on Obamacare Ruling: 'Gives Power on a Platter to Congress to Tax Anything," Mediaite, July 3, 2012. Referenced at: mediaite.com
Merrill Matthews, "Is Obamacare the largest Tax Increase in US History?," Forbes, June 29, 2012. Referenced at: forbes.com
Go Back
The US republic is unique. Government can pass no law or take no action unless the authority for such law or action is specifically granted in the Constitution. That is the essence of our limited government. It is also the understanding of the states when they signed the Constitution (a compact, or contract) and formed the American Union.
What happens when the government oversteps its constitutional powers? Well, initially we are instructed to let our constitutional system play out since our government has a clear separation of powers in its three branches and is designed with a series of checks and balances. Each of the branches is expected to act as a jealous guardian of its powers and responsibilities so that no other branch tries to intrude on the others.
When these procedural safeguards break down, then it is up to the States to take matters into their hands. The States, as sovereign entities, under our federalist system are the final check in the series of checks and balances. It is sovereign versus sovereign. Alexander Hamilton explained it best in Federalist Papers No. 26: "....The State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if anything improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent."
Since the states can no longer control the Congress from within, as the Constitution originally provided in Article I, Section 3 by appointing Senators ("The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof..."), it's most effective, and "rightful," remedy is Nullification and Interposition. The answer is Nullification. This is the doctrine articulated by Thomas Jefferson which states that the Constitution, by word and by creation, empowers states to nullify laws passed by Congress. That is, it allows states to decide when laws passed by Congress have exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution and to rightfully declare that they are null and void and therefore unenforceable. The Constitution, through the Supremacy Clause of the Sixth Amendment, acknowledges the residuary sovereign powers that reside with the states to govern themselves and their citizens. Our system of federalism (embodied in the Tenth Amendment) empowers the States to stand up to the federal government. And the compact nature of our Constitution gives the States the legal authority. The states, as the parties to the Constitution, are the ones who rightfully can reign in the government in its application of that document. The States, as creators of the federal government, have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. In other words, the states are the rightful parties who can enforce the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolves of 1799: "That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a Nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY."
A similar doctrine, called Interposition, was advocated by James Madison and takes nullification one step further. It imposes a duty upon each state to intercede or insert itself (to step in) between its people and the government in order to prevent them from unconstitutional laws, executive policies, and even federal court decisions. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolves of 1798:
"The powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states (alone) are the parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants (of power) enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are duty-bound, to INTERPOSE for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them...."
As the Constitution's absolute sovereign creator, the People are not - and were never intended to be - subordinate to their creation, the federal government. The government was created as an agent, to both the States and the People. The people have final authority. An agent serves its master and never the other way around. The Constitution is merely "a description, (or memorialization), of those powers which the people have ultimately delegated to their Magistrates, to be exercised for definite purposes." The people therefore, according to Madison, are entitled to interposition by their State governments when their agent, the federal government, fails to conform with constitutional dictates. [Note: To make clear - the States spoke for the People through the State Conventions which were selected by the People].
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were enraged when the Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted in 1796 in response to the Quasi War with France. The Acts were designed to round up and deport aliens that the government deemed problematic and to detain and imprison those who dared to criticize, disparage, and malign members of the government (except the VP, who just happened to be Jefferson at the time!!) either in word or in print. They believed the laws were unconstitutional. Jefferson complained to Madison that both acts showed "no respect" for the Constitution. Madison called the Alien Act "a monster" that would "forever disgrace its parents," the Founders that demanded a limited government and a Bill of Rights. The two men corresponded about what remedy should be taken in response. They didn't trust the judicial review process for the Court at the time was dominated with Federalists, and it was the Federalists in Congress who passed the laws and it was the Federalist president, John Adams, who signed them into law and who didn't believe they offended the Constitution. In general, they didn't trust the Supreme Court to be the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. They also understood that an oppressive government would lead states or even parts of states to secede and that was an extreme situation that should be avoided as aggressively as possible. They concluded that it was up to the states to declare when acts of the government exceeded constitutional authority and then to declare them null and void. And so they came up with their doctrines of nullification and interposition.
The Alien and Sedition Acts prompted Madison and Jefferson to organize protests. They did so by drafting a series of resolutions that would be adopted by the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky to pronounce the unconstitutionality of the Acts. The resolutions that Madison authored were adopted in 1798 by the Virginia legislature and became the Virginia Resolves, while the resolutions that were drafted by Jefferson drafted were eventually adopted in modified form by the Kentucky legislature. (The Kentucky Resolves of 1798; another set of resolutions were adopted in 1799). In passing the resolutions, both legislatures expressed the judgment that the two federal laws were unconstitutional. The Kentucky Resolves stated that its purpose was to protest the Acts while the Virginia Resolves were more forceful. It declared that "necessary and proper measures will be taken" to maintain the authorities, rights, and liberties" of the States and the people and then appealed to the other states to join in the protest. The governor of Virginia was instructed to transmit copies of the Resolves to the other state legislatures in the hope that those bodies would adopt similar measures.
The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions highlight a grave flaw in the Constitution of 1787: the states did not explicitly provide or designate an umpire to settle disputes between the states and the central government. The Constitution is quiet on that subject. The Federalist Papers, the ultimate authority on the meaning and intent of the Constitution, only gives the Supreme Court the power to offer an "opinion" to the other branches and no binding authority. [Federalist No. 78 says the federal Judiciary "has no influence over either the SWORD or the PURSE (executive or legislative branches) .... It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment."]. It was the Supreme Court itself which redefined its powers in Marbury v. Madison (1803), vaulting its status to the final arbiter of the meaning and intent of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court is to remain the unchallenged ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, as the Court unanimously proclaimed in Cooper v. Aaron (358 U.S. 1 [1958]), then the caprice of the national government and not the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Clearly, if the national government is the judge of its own powers, it will construe them broadly and dispose of any hopes for limited government.
Thomas Jefferson wrote on this topic in 1820: "To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps - and their power is the most dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the Elective control. The Constitution has elected no single tribunal. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves."
He wrote again in 1821: "The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Jefferson warned in very strong terms that the federal judiciary is not to be trusted. He inferred that in the absence of a designated umpire, the parties to the compact are the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution. His reasoning is sound and needs to be re-asserted, just as states are now re-asserting the doctrines of Nullification and Interposition.
We arguably have an unconstitutional law with Obamacare. Arguably, the government has overstepped its constitutional powers. It has over-stepped its bounds as a government of limited powers and one obligated to protect our Life, Liberty, and Property and not to attack those precious liberties. It simply doesn't have the authority to legislate for healthcare. That is a state function, under its state police powers (to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morality of its people). It is the same argument that Jefferson and Madison made with the Alien Act of 1796. Congress didn't have the constitutional authority to pass such legislation. Now, there may be some who will say that the government can use its taxing/spending powers to regulate for the "general welfare," but read further for my argument on the taxing power. Additionally, the "general welfare" clause refers to the people of the United States, in general, and not just certain groups of people. Everyone must be served, equally. With Obamacare, the poor and other uninsured are served. A 2011 census showed that 15% of Americans are living in poverty. There are additional people who are uninsured because they have been denied on account of pre-existing conditions. These people will benefit from Obamacare. But the young, healthy people forced into the system for no other reason than to provide the 'tax' revenue to support health insurance and care for the uninsured are not receiving a benefit but rather, a burden. The government is plundering their property.
Furthermore, Obamacare has abused its powers under the Commerce Clause (the power the administration gave for its authority to pass Obamacare), as the Supreme Court agreed. It has abused its powers under the taxing power as well, as Judge Andrew Napolitano has explained: "The ruling basically gives power on a platter to Congress - power that it never had before, power that it never exercised before. It sets a dangerous precedent for all sorts of non-action that government can place a tax on.... But this is the first time in the history of the country that the Court has permitted the Congress to tax people for doing nothing. To punish them for refusing to do what the government wants them to do. That is a very, very dangerous precedent."
We just need to walk through the steps to see if we've allowed our constitutional system the opportunity to work for us in stopping this unlawful act of Congress. Again, I am assuming, as a great many other intelligent, constitutionally-literate, and patriotic Americans are assuming, that Obamacare is unconstitutional both in the first instance (no power to legislate for healthcare) and under any other power in Article I (Commerce or Taxing/Spending):
(i) First, did the Separation of Powers stop the bad bill? No, it didn't. President Obama, head of the Executive branch, should not have signed the bill, passed by the Legislative branch, into law.
(ii) Did the people contact their representatives and did Congress respond to the peoples' wishes by repealing the bad bill? No, they did not. A gallop poll in February of this year showed that 72% of all Americans (including 56% of Democrats) believe the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional and want it struck down or repealed. These polls are no secret to members of Congress. Letters and calls are delivered constantly and protests have been held in Washington DC. Yet the House and the Senate (especially the Senate) has remained firm on the bill. Congress intends for it to stand.
(iii) Third, did the Supreme Court strike the unlawful bill down? No, it didn't.
(iv) Can the people fix the problem at the ballot box? That is still yet to be seen. Will this year's voters retire those representatives who have violated their oaths and failed to tie legislation to a legitimate source of constitutional authority? Will the new Congress repeal the bad bill?
Obamacare must be stopped. Government must be stopped. The unstoppable growth of government must be stopped. Obamacare will lead to an unprecedented growth in the number of agencies it will require to implement the program and then, perhaps, even incidental programs to keep people from needing healthcare. If President Obama is re-elected, or if Mitt Romney is elected and fails to repeal Obamacare, then the States must be prepared and willing to use Nullification and Interposition in order to protect the liberties of the American people which are secure only as long as the Constitution is faithfully adhered to.
Just like the early Americans who supported the unconstitutional acts of the Federalists, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, and did not question them, modern Americans have been dupes in forging their own chains. The chains have gotten stronger and have been fastened tighter. We are on the verge of losing the precious liberties and safeguards we were blessed with by our divinely-inspired Founders. We need a revival of the Spirit of 1776. We need to recapture the constitutional urgency that men like Jefferson and Madison felt in 1798 and 1800. And then we need to promote Nullification as never before and if need be, declare Obamacare null and void and make sure it is unenforceable upon the American people.
I'd like to believe what Thomas Jefferson said in 1799:
"The spirit of 1776 is not dead. It has only been slumbering. The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played on by some fact with more fiction; they have been the dupes of artful maneuvers, and made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves."
If anyone would like to support the Nullify Obamacare movement, please sign the petition with your state Tenth Amendment Center.
For example, if you live in NC, the site is - northcarolina.tenthamendmentcenter.com
If you live in Pennsylvania, the site is - pennsylvania.tenthamendmentcenter.com
If you live in Florida, the site is - florida.tenthamendmentcenter.com
And so on.
If anyone would like to help the NC Tenth Amendment Center bring a Nullify Now! tour to North Carolina, please purchase a ticket and donate - thepoint.com
References:
The IPAB - hoover.org
50 Dangers from Obamacare - coachisright.com
Rand Paul, "The Five Major Obamacare Taxes That Will Hit Your Wallet in 2013," FOX News, July 9, 2012. paul.senate.gov
Defunding Obamacare - blog.heritage.org
The 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare - blog.heritage.org
Companies Cut Jobs to Cut Healthcare Costs, FOX News - video.foxbusiness.com
Jonathon M. Siedl, "Pelosi Defends Obamacare Using the Declaration of Independence," The Blaze, March 22, 2012. Referenced at: theblaze.com
Christian Fritz, "Interposition and the Heresy of Nullification: James Madison and the Exercise of Sovereign Constitutional Powers," The Heritage Foundation, February 21, 2012. Referenced at: heritage.org [I, along with the Tenth Amendment Center, take issue with the thesis of this article]
Daniel Greenfield, "There Ain't No More Middle Ground," Sultan Knish, June 30, 2012. Referenced at: sultanknish.blogspot.com
Andrew Kirrell, "Judge Napolitano on Obamacare Ruling: 'Gives Power on a Platter to Congress to Tax Anything," Mediaite, July 3, 2012. Referenced at: mediaite.com
Merrill Matthews, "Is Obamacare the largest Tax Increase in US History?," Forbes, June 29, 2012. Referenced at: forbes.com
Comments
|
We are a nation of laws. I like to think that we still have a constitutional republic where the Constitution still enshrines the hope of a free people to have a government that has limited powers over their Lives, Liberty, and Property. If government doesn't respect those liberties then we don't have the rights we think we have. It's just smoke and mirrors and we are living a fragile existence as a free nation.
I don't care if we decide to have massive healthcare reform, but it MUST be done according to the laws we established to guide our country, and Obamacare exceeds any power delegated to the federal government by the States. |
|
To be honest, I think the constitutionality of Obamacare is moot. Employers large and small and hospital administrators nationwide have said that massive and sweeping changes have already been made to the way they do business because of Obamacare. Reversing these changes would be extraordinarily difficult, time-consuming, expensive and disruptive. For better or worse, Obamacare's a reality. I think it's time for the American people to accept this and move on. History will decide whether it was ultimately for the better or worse.
|
|
|
Hello Michael,
Nullification has a more solid constitutional foundation than the Supreme Court believing it is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. To buy into the mindset that the Supreme Court has that kind of power is to reject Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. You may think it is proper for the high Court to characterize the mandate (payment and penalty) as a tax, but it's not constitutional. Fortunately, I've written extensively on Nullification and know the subject very well. If I didn't think the government was exceeding constitutional bounds in a dangerous direction then I would not be promoting it as I'm doing and I would not have accepted a leadership position with the Tenth Amendment Center which strains the very limited time I already have. Truly, we are experiencing a government that is not constitutional at this point in time. |
|
|
Diane, the Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment of Obamacare's constitutionality. Also, you mention Alexander Hamilton's quote saying that states should be the voice and, if necessary, the arm of discontent should they see anything improper in federal governance. Obamacare was essentially declared a tax by the Supreme Court. I don't think there's anything improper about a tax which aims to improve the nation's healthcare system and the health of the American people.
Hey, Stan....at the side of the screen, I see "Is ObamaCare good law, or should we just reject the new ObamaTax, and seek other remedies?" The options are yes, no, and "I'm not here." The first two are not viable options due to the phrasing of the question. I'm really curious about what the 9 votes you've received on this issue were. And "installment" has two l’s. |
| Candidates for North Carolina Council of State Show up in Wayne County for Forum | Editorials, For Love of God and Country, Op-Ed & Politics | How to improve our schools |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
I understand that your time is extremely limited. Mine is as well. Time spent highlighting U.S. actions which flout international laws and cost lives is well spent. I don't think the same can be said about doggedly pursuing the constitutionality of Obamacare. There's the letter of the law.....and then there's the spirit of the law. I prefer focusing on the latter.