Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

States Launching 'Civil Disobedience' to National Health Care
Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 3/12/2010 | Tom Gantert

Posted on 03/12/2010 9:55:31 AM PST by MichCapCon

Lawmakers opposed to President Barack Obama's plan for national health care reform are hoping to spur a nationwide "civil disobedience" that can derail Obamacare.

State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland; State Rep. Justin Amash, R-Kentwood; and State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, have each introduced similar constitutional amendments that seek to trump the national health care bills.

For example, Sen. Kuipers' bill would prohibit a federal law from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It also prevents anyone from being penalized for ignoring the federal law.

"Where this is going, I don't know," Kuipers said this week. "You don't know until the states try to do it."

According to a 10th Amendment think tank, 26 states have attempted their own versions of Kuipers' bill. Arizona has had its version passed by both houses of Congress, and it will be voted on by residents in November. Virginia also had both houses of Congress pass a similar bill, and it is awaiting the governor's signature.

Constitutional law experts say state law does not take precedence over federal law.

"This would violate the U.S. Constitution if challenged," Frank Ravitch, a professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, wrote in an e-mail.

Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Penn Law School, wrote in an e-mail that the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law power over state law.

"States cannot say no to a federal mandate," Roosevelt wrote. "Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."

Michael Boldin, founder of the 10th Amendment Center — a public policy think tank in Los Angeles — said there are cases where state resistance has stymied federal law.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a U.S. federal law that was to impose new security standards for a state's driver's licenses. Many states opposed it with their own state laws, and the act has not been implemented, Boldin said.

"Basically a bunch of people all across the country are saying, 'No. We aren't going to go along with it,' and getting state government to back them," Boldin said. "They (federal government) didn't threaten to take away funding. They didn't send in armed guards. They just repeatedly delayed implementation. In fact, it (REAL ID) is null and void.

"The real success in these actions is 'we the people' saying we are in charge and the federal government is not going to force things down our throat."

Boldin said medical marijuana could also be a route that the states go in their battle against Obama's health care plan.

In California and Michigan, the state law is in conflict with the national law on marijuana. In both states, the federal government can prosecute for medicinal marijuana use even though the state allows it.

"You can have a situation where federal law prohibits something that states permit," Roosevelt said. "That means that the state won't arrest or prosecute you for it, but the federal government still might. State law can't protect you from federal law. But enforcement of marijuana laws is a low priority for the federal government, so effectively you might be safe — I think the Obama administration actually had a policy statement about how they weren't going to devote resources to this in California."

Boldin said that is why it is important for as many states as possible to join the other states if they want to make Obamacare realistically unenforceable.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 111th; civildisobedience; constitution; donttreadonme; federalism; government; healthcare; lping; nullifiation; obama; obamacare; realid; realidact; socialisthealthcare; sovereignty; statesrights; tenthamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Lawmakers opposed to President Barack Obama's plan for national health care reform are hoping to spur a nationwide "civil disobedience" that can derail Obamacare.

State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland; State Rep. Justin Amash, R-Kentwood; and State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, have each introduced similar constitutional amendments that seek to trump the national health care bills.

For example, Sen. Kuipers' bill would prohibit a federal law from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It also prevents anyone from being penalized for ignoring the federal law.

"Where this is going, I don't know," Kuipers said this week. "You don't know until the states try to do it."

According to a 10th Amendment think tank, 26 states have attempted their own versions of Kuipers' bill. Arizona has had its version passed by both houses of Congress, and it will be voted on by residents in November. Virginia also had both houses of Congress pass a similar bill, and it is awaiting the governor's signature.

Constitutional law experts say state law does not take precedence over federal law.

"This would violate the U.S. Constitution if challenged," Frank Ravitch, a professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, wrote in an e-mail.

Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Penn Law School, wrote in an e-mail that the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law power over state law.

"States cannot say no to a federal mandate," Roosevelt wrote. "Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."

Michael Boldin, founder of the 10th Amendment Center — a public policy think tank in Los Angeles — said there are cases where state resistance has stymied federal law.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a U.S. federal law that was to impose new security standards for a state's driver's licenses. Many states opposed it with their own state laws, and the act has not been implemented, Boldin said.

"Basically a bunch of people all across the country are saying, 'No. We aren't going to go along with it,' and getting state government to back them," Boldin said. "They (federal government) didn't threaten to take away funding. They didn't send in armed guards. They just repeatedly delayed implementation. In fact, it (REAL ID) is null and void.

"The real success in these actions is 'we the people' saying we are in charge and the federal government is not going to force things down our throat."

Boldin said medical marijuana could also be a route that the states go in their battle against Obama's health care plan.

In California and Michigan, the state law is in conflict with the national law on marijuana. In both states, the federal government can prosecute for medicinal marijuana use even though the state allows it.

"You can have a situation where federal law prohibits something that states permit," Roosevelt said. "That means that the state won't arrest or prosecute you for it, but the federal government still might. State law can't protect you from federal law. But enforcement of marijuana laws is a low priority for the federal government, so effectively you might be safe — I think the Obama administration actually had a policy statement about how they weren't going to devote resources to this in California."

Boldin said that is why it is important for as many states as possible to join the other states if they want to make Obamacare realistically unenforceable.

1 posted on 03/12/2010 9:55:31 AM PST by MichCapCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

Not so much civil disobedience, but federalism...remember that concept?


2 posted on 03/12/2010 9:58:51 AM PST by americanophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

Federalism? Obama and the Politbureau never herard of that.


3 posted on 03/12/2010 10:04:19 AM PST by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
The Kermit Rosevelt Mentioned is Kermit Roosevelt, III, Teddy Roosevelt's Great-Grandson.


4 posted on 03/12/2010 10:08:51 AM PST by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

“Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law power over state law. “

And, by any reasonable reading, Ammendment X limits the scope and power of the federal government.


5 posted on 03/12/2010 10:12:17 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Penn Law School, wrote in an e-mail that the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution gives federal law power over state law.

"States cannot say no to a federal mandate," Roosevelt wrote. "Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."


States are reasserting their 10th Amendment rights by saying no to Congress violating Article 1 Section 8 as they are trying to impose regulating health care that is not specifically granted to Congress in Article 1 Section 8 and therefore is a power granted to the states per the 10th Amendment.
6 posted on 03/12/2010 10:16:20 AM PST by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it! www.FairTaxNation.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

“States cannot say no to a federal mandate,” Roosevelt wrote. “Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void.”

The Founders, whose fathers and grandfathers were all too familiar with over reaching central government, would never have intended the above.


7 posted on 03/12/2010 10:52:04 AM PST by Let's Roll (Stop paying Planned Parenthood to murder babies! Cut off their federal funding!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

IMHO these “push back” state laws and resolutions are worthwhile, clear shots across the bow of a radical Congress and Marxist President.

Should National Socialized Health Care become law, these states should be the first to challenge it, for under Article III Section 2, the suits would go immediately to the Supreme Court.


8 posted on 03/12/2010 11:04:48 AM PST by Jacquerie (It is only in the context of Natural Law that our Declaration & Constitution form a coherent whole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

“It really comes down to this: My conservative political philosophy does not threaten or affect the freedom of liberals. I don’t ask them to sacrifice anything for me, but they DEMAND I sacrifice for them”


9 posted on 03/12/2010 11:05:28 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll

Perhaps the forgotten components in this debate is the ‘consent of the governed’ and the prerogative of the people to start a fresh. It seems the lawyers and pols have forgotten these things or more likely would rather ignore them.


10 posted on 03/12/2010 11:06:07 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
would never have intended the above

Well they not only did not intend it, they stated it in Article I Section 8 which limited Congress to enumerated powers.

11 posted on 03/12/2010 11:10:33 AM PST by Jacquerie (It is only in the context of Natural Law that our Declaration & Constitution form a coherent whole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

The Supremacy Clause applies to laws that the federal government has the Constitutionally delegated authority from the people to create in the first place. Just where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to make this law over us? Unconstitutional laws are void on their face. They don’t need the States to nullify them, but it might prove helpfull for the people to have their support in this fight.


12 posted on 03/12/2010 11:20:43 AM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marsh2

“The Supremacy Clause applies to laws that the federal government has the Constitutionally delegated authority from the people to create in the first place.”

Well said. There are several forms of legal resistance to the federal government still available.

1. Increase your exemptions on your W-2 to the maximum legal amount and starve the beast.

2. Short your estimated tax payments but save enough to pay your “legally” due taxes.

3. Boycott financial supporters of politicians who vote for this.

4. Kick the bums out.

5. Cash out your 401k’s now.

6. State AGs can file for injunctions in federal courts and continue to file non-stop bringing the federal court system to a halt.

There are many ways to fight this if it passes.


13 posted on 03/12/2010 11:31:12 AM PST by ChinaThreat (3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
"States cannot say no to a federal mandate," Roosevelt wrote. "Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."

That's what they'd like you to believe. They might try comprehending the 10th amendment.

14 posted on 03/12/2010 12:24:02 PM PST by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake; bamahead

Ping


15 posted on 03/12/2010 12:51:31 PM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

I don’t think the CBO factored this in their estimate of how much this nationalized healthcare would cost, not that I believed their estimates anyway. It will probably be 10 times their estimate.


16 posted on 03/12/2010 12:56:38 PM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
17 posted on 03/12/2010 1:01:46 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
"Lawmakers opposed to President Barack Obama's plan for national health care reform are hoping to spur a nationwide "civil disobedience" that can derail Obamacare."

Is this NOT a battle cry?! I say to all of us, that it is exactly that, A call to Battle. Folks, all bets are off. Whether people get this or not, in certain camps the gloves are off, and these people mean business. No joke... wow. I didn't expect this so soon, but there it is. The Gauntlets are down, whether people know it or not.
18 posted on 03/12/2010 1:56:17 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Yes they would, and almost overnight. Congress has no legal or constitutional authority to write health care legislation at all. ZERO.

It will get struck down by the supreme court, which has already thwarted Obama a couple of times. LOL The more I think about it, the more I recognize that they are gonna make SCOTUS look like the bad guys. It does so many things just right. They know they lost this fight in the public arena. They pass it, and then the states challenge it, and SCOTUS strikes it down. Obama gets to be all pissed off as well as liberals ect. We will see right then just how big a foe we fight, the left will be outraged and we will be able to see how big they are. They will paint SCOTUS as the bad guy, and lower their credibility with the people. It will also make it harder for SCOTUS to continue to oppose the administration, supporting the constitution. It will be our PROOF that Obama and the Liberals/progressives are out to destroy the constitution. Its PROOF.

Is that not a threat to our sovereignty? Is that not Treason of the HIGHEST Order?


19 posted on 03/12/2010 2:04:41 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

That too.


20 posted on 03/12/2010 2:16:22 PM PST by Let's Roll (Stop paying Planned Parenthood to murder babies! Cut off their federal funding!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Yes, and because the details and real meaning behind the constitution WAS NOT TAUGHT. It has not been taught to us in schools for the last 60 years.

Because of that, people didn’t KNOW that what the government was doing, with the New Deal etc, didn’t know that it and the Interstate Commerce Clause are also unconstitutional. They didn’t know, and so didn’t stop it.

We are relearning, at a National Consciousness level, the meanings in and behind the Constitution. We are reliving the reasons why our fore fathers built this nation the way they did. It was to protect us from a Government that could or would dictate down to the nth degree what we can and can’t do in life, our lifestyle, or even the things we can and cannot buy.

We the people have let Government go wild. Its time put on the brakes in this freight train to hell. Time to go full reverse..... That means we are gonna have to demand it and FIGHT for it.

The sleeping giant is awake.

For example, the Interstate Commerce clause as it is used today by the Federal Government can no longer be tolerated. Its use and miss- use by the Fed is the root of all the ills facing us now. That thing has got to go. Whats needed and works is kept, what is being used to take our liberties has to go. This is the kind of work we face. It won’t be easy but it has to be done. This isn’t a partisan thing, this is an AMERICAN THING. We the people are all Americans, and we are all suffering regardless of party affiliation. We have allowed the Fed to get this out of control, and it is up to our generation, all those living today, its up to us to stop this. Or this country will cease to have any relationship with either its founding principles, or the protection of freedom for the individual person that it was designed to have. We have handed those freedoms away over generations. It is up to this one to stop it. And when it’s over, we will know that the USA indeed DOES stand for freedom.And her people are willing to fight against ANYONE who would take it from us. Be it an enemy foreign OR domestic.

The sleeping giant is awake.


21 posted on 03/12/2010 2:34:35 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
"Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."

That is true. Calling an unconstitutional statute, regulation, or other rule a "law" does not make it one, however.

I would like to see more people start referring to illegitimate statutes as precisely that. Note that the term "unconstitutional" has become so passé I think "illegitimate" is probably better. To be sure, anything which is unconstitutional is--by definition--illegitimate, but many people don't realize that.

22 posted on 03/12/2010 3:31:01 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

Just as Obama threatened during the Democrat/Progressive Republican healthcare/takeover summit last month we will test the electorate in November on their healthcare vote. The same can be done with state sovereignty. We can test the Constitutionality of this in court.


23 posted on 03/12/2010 3:40:25 PM PST by orinoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon; ExTexasRedhead

Doesn’t matter, they have to pass the SENATE version first, then it will be HAND carried to the WH for obambi to sign into law. Keep those phones ringing, even if your rep is a republican call them and tell them in no uncertain terms HELL NO to any health care bill.

Be sure to call your Republican Reps and tell the HELL NO or we vote you out in Nov.

Defeat Obamacare call list: List now contains the new MAYBES culled from FR posts.

PLEASE CALL! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE State District

Code Red” - House Target List on Health Care

The National Republican Congressional Committee has published a target list on health care. In addition to continuing to contact the five Tennessee Democrat Congressmen, you can go http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/94697.aspx to contact some of these targets. Much of the talk following Obama’s announcement has focused on how to defeat this second bill through reconciliation, but that is misleading because the first step to defeating Obamacare is not by concentrating on defeating the “fixer” bill but by defeating the Senate bill in the House when it goes to the floor for an up-or-down vote on Thursday, March 18th.

Rep. Lincoln Davis 202-225-6831 Columbia office: 931-490-8699
Rep. Jim Cooper 202-225-4311 Nashville office: 615-736-5295
Rep. Bart Gordon 202-225-4231 Murfreesboro office: 615-896-1986
John Tanner (202) 225-4714, Union City, (731) 885-7070, Jackson Phone: (731) 423-4848, Millington (901) 873-5690 TN (MAYBE)
Rep. Steve Cohen 202-225-3265 Memphis office: 901-544-4131
Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411 AZ 5th District
Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588 AZ 8th District
Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914 AZ 1st District
Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643 CA 11th District
John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107 CO 3rd District
Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028 CT 4th District
Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757 FL 8th District
Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1114 IL 14th District
Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999 IN 9th District
Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075 MI 7th District
Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227 MI 9th District
Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462) NV 3rd District
Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813 NH 1st District
Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500 NY 1st District
John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371 NY 19th District
Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150 NY 23rd District
James Matheson Toll-Free Number 1 (877) 677-9743 (202) 225-3011Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146 NY 24th District
Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657 NY 25th District
Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355 ND At-Large District
Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723 OH 1st District
Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196 OH 15th District
Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300 OH 18th District
Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038 PA 3rd District
Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963 PA 8th District
Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988 PA 10th District
Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200 PA 11th District
John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114 SC 5th District
Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291 VA 5th District
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 WVA 1st District
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 WVA 3rd District
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 WI 8th District

Bart Stupak (202) 225 4735 MI (MAYBE)
Brian Baird (202) 225-3536, Vancouver, (360) 695-6292. Olympia, (360) 352-9768, (MAYBE)
senator mark begich (202) 224-3004 toll free. (877) 501 - 6275 just became a MAYBE
Jason Altmire 202-225-2565, Aliquippa, 724-378-0928,
Natrona Heights, 724-226-1304 (MAYBE)

On the Bubble (Major developments from the “yes” and “no” columns in the House)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467046/posts


24 posted on 03/12/2010 4:05:37 PM PST by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

ammo for signs

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” ~~ President Ronald Reagan

We The People, Ray Stevens (obamacare) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc_-L4fyLUo

OBAMANOMICS—TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy
Bambi doesn’t keep his promises...so buyer beware!

SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!

PLEASE ASK THEM TO REPEAL THE BIG NEW FEES in TRICARE for Life, the retired Military over 65 secondary health ins. which they passed in a DOD bill. They promised our Military these benefits, and our Military have earned them.

Sen Scott Brown’s number is 202-224-4543
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121

Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts

Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military’s secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!
..............................

OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433867/posts/

New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.

More Senate healthcare horrors: Starving seniors, Alzheimer’s cuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2469701/posts

Obama Puts Social Security on the Chopping Block (this is a commie rag)
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/obama-puts-social-security-chopping-block

Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security, http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security

Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html

Medicare tax may apply to investment income (ObamaCare tax hike)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460988/posts

Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html

Will healthcare reform mean cuts in Medicare for seniors?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1017/will-healthcare-reform-mean-cuts-in-medicare-for-seniors

Health Reform’s Hidden Victims Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html

Defaulted Loans May Haunt Seniors (Cuts SS CHECKS)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2467213/posts

Obama to outline $313 billion in Medicare, Medicaid spending cuts
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/14/nation/na-obama-radio14

A trip to the grocery store Tuesday saw cost of food skyrocketing again.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/2009/20090629-SenCitMayNotGet.htm

Report: Bill would reduce senior care Medicare cuts approved by House may affect access to providers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402597.html

Unions Cut Special Deal on Health Taxes (Healthcare cost for seniors going up to pay for unions)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704281204575003040695279432.html

Mayo clinic
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517004

Weighing Medical Costs of End-of-Life Care (Money, Death Panels and The Duty to Die)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all
Seniors’ coverage options dwindle as Medicare Advantage programs close shop
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-advantage_22bus.ART.State.Edition1.3c912a9.html

Screwing the Seniors? AARP to Make Millions Off of Obamacare
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/10/screwing-seniors-aarp-to-make-millions.html

Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html

Balch calls that “genuine chutzpah” because the Obama plan makes that claim “even as it imposes what will be ever-increasing rationing on senior citizens.”
The Senate health care bill already contains provisions that threaten to ration lifesaving medical treatment for seniors.

NRLC says state commissioners of the new health insurance exchanges created by the bill would be given significant power. They could deny people who are trying to obtain policies in the exchange the option of choosing health plans less likely to deny treatment, by limiting what they would be allowed to pay for such policies.
Related web sites:

National Right to Life Committee - http://www.nrlc.org

Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html

Will healthcare reform mean cuts in Medicare for seniors?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1017/will-healthcare-reform-mean-cuts-in-medicare-for-seniors

Health Reform’s Hidden Victims Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html

Repeal Obamacare? Unlikely
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHarsanyi/2010/03/10/repeal_obamacare_unlikely
Obama spent last week campaigning for health care reform, at one point getting some college-age fans worked up about all the free stuff — “free” preventive care and “free” checkups and so forth — they would receive if his version of health care reform passed.
……………………………………..
Slashing Medicare to pay for healthcare reform an ugly shell game
Dr. Stuart M. Shapiro,
July 27, 2009
http://www.mcknights.com/slashing-medicare-to-pay-
for-healthcare-reform-an-ugly-shell-game/article/140656/

If the cost is by cutting Medicaid and Medicare, then taxpayers are in for a rude awakening when millions will retire without money to pay for their healthcare. Ransoming seniors’ long-term care for immediate, large-scale health reform is more politically beneficial for its supporters in the short-term than it is reasonable for everyone in the long run.

In fact, even in the short-term, one could argue that taxpayers, including the elderly, are looking at an old-fashioned shell game from Washington. No sooner was the ink dry on the federal stimulus package, which provided millions of dollars to support care for the elderly in Pennsylvania, before Congress and the administration began to propose major cuts in Medicare to finance healthcare reform. Because Medicare payments support quality care in our nation’s nursing homes, the proposed cuts nationally approaching $50 billion in Medicare payments for the care of the elderly is guaranteed to undercut the quality gains of the past decade. In Pennsylvania, if the proposals currently on the table are enacted, these policies would result in an almost 10% reduction in cumulative payments over 10 years, or more than $2.1 billion.

None of the answers on healthcare, Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare is easy. But there is one thing we do know: Our population is growing older, and doing so rapidly. Cutting money from the programs that finance care for Pennsylvania seniors is seriously flawed. There is no simple or single solution. But there is a wrong way, and taking money from the care for American seniors is deeply flawed.

Stuart H. Shapiro, M.D., is the president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Health Care Association

.....................………………………..

SOCIALIZED MEDICINE THREAD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2469301/posts

........................…………………………..

MILITARY & Retired MILITARY

Veterans’ G.I. Bill benefits MIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464680/posts

TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:

http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html

This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf

Pushing Veterans Toward the Grave
http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/opinion/2009/08/pushing-veterans-toward-the-grave-31/

Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/

By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009

Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.

The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.

“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.


25 posted on 03/12/2010 4:06:06 PM PST by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Federal law supersedes State law ONLY when the Constitution grants FedGov that authority in the FIRST place. These alleged law professors need to be fired.

It’s on a par with the notion that a treaty can somehow trump the Constitution. No way the Founders were that dumb and/or naïve.


26 posted on 03/12/2010 5:44:29 PM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub. III OK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment; 17th Miss Regt; 2001convSVT; 2ndDivisionVet; A_Former_Democrat; ...

Thanks EdReform. Pinging the 10th Amendment Division to a good discussion. The Constitutional “experts” cited by the author parrot their jaded renderings of the supremacy clause. I suppose it’s indicative of the depravity of academia generally and and legal “scholars” in particular.


27 posted on 03/12/2010 9:13:54 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

...Often perhaps, just a question of who ‘blinks’ first.


28 posted on 03/12/2010 10:21:40 PM PST by Seadog Bytes (OPM - The Liberal 'solution' to every societal problem. (Other People's Money))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Treaties of the time dealt with relationships between countries, the rights and privileges that one country’s citizens would have while in another or while dealing with another. They did not reach into the internal matters of a country and mess with natural resource use, labor, manufacture, endangered species, migratory birds, air quality, climate change, transportation and every aspect of commerce.


29 posted on 03/13/2010 1:17:41 AM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
Without the threat of secession these State House yapping dog barks are pretty meaningless...


30 posted on 03/13/2010 4:04:24 AM PST by central_va ( http://www.15thvirginia.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Seadog Bytes
just a question of who ‘blinks’ first

Yes indeed and the Obama machine is sputtering but they ain't blinking yet.

31 posted on 03/13/2010 7:08:41 AM PST by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
RE: "Any state law or constitutional provision that conflicts with a federal law is void."

Any federal government that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution is void.

Signed,
We The People

32 posted on 03/13/2010 7:14:41 AM PST by big'ol_freeper ("Anyone pushing Romney must love socialism...Piss on Romney and his enablers!!" ~ Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Seadog Bytes
...Often perhaps, just a question of who ‘blinks’ first.

The crux in a nutshell. For those not caught in abject ignorance, compliments of government school indoctrination, not to mention Biblical accounts, the historical lessons teach us that tyrants NEVER sleep OR blink. I'm convinced they must be eliminated from the equation -- one way or another.

33 posted on 03/13/2010 8:05:54 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Without the threat of secession these State House yapping dog barks are pretty meaningless...

The prospect of secession is a powerful force to be sure but is certainly not the first tool to pull from the box. Summoning the collective will to resist feral tyranny is the first step in the process IMHO. It seems to me we are slowly making gains strengthening and expanding the resistance. Where it leads is anybody's guess at this point.

34 posted on 03/13/2010 8:16:45 AM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: marsh2

Quite true. But even in such terms, a treaty could not impose any unconstitutional burden on the Union or any State.


35 posted on 03/13/2010 9:39:13 AM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub. III OK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB
The Kermit Roosevelt Mentioned is Kermit Roosevelt, III, Teddy Roosevelt's Great-Grandson.

Socialism is in the DNA of that family. He needs to reread the Supremacy Clause:

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.

ObamaCare would be Unconstitutional and so neither the States nor the People would have any obligation to obey it.

36 posted on 03/13/2010 10:56:29 AM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ChinaThreat

RE: “5. Cash out your 401k’s now.”

**************

Question: With all the talk last year about dipping into peoples’ 401Ks (that talk has settled down but could pop up again at any time), do you also recommend cashing out IRAs, or are they less easily ‘hit’ than the 401K? What’s the difference, really?

When I left my former employer, I converted 401K to an IRA and certainly do not want the feds to gain access.

I’m old enough to cash out without penalty (besides taxes) but had not planned to do that for at least 5 years. What do you think?


37 posted on 03/13/2010 11:08:56 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mo

RE: “It really comes down to this: My conservative political philosophy does not threaten or affect the freedom of liberals. I don’t ask them to sacrifice anything for me, but they DEMAND I sacrifice for them””

******************

I think this pretty much says it all for most of us on FR!


38 posted on 03/13/2010 11:10:14 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Danae

RE: “Lawmakers opposed to President Barack Obama’s plan for national health care reform are hoping to spur a nationwide “civil disobedience” that can derail Obamacare.”

and your response...

“Is this NOT a battle cry?! I say to all of us, that it is exactly that, A call to Battle. Folks, all bets are off. Whether people get this or not, in certain camps the gloves are off, and these people mean business. No joke... wow. I didn’t expect this so soon, but there it is. The Gauntlets are down, whether people know it or not.”

***********

That’s how I interpret it; a call to battle. And I’d like to derail more than just Obamacare; I’d like to derail the entire corrupt, Chicago-style criminal, Marxist enterprise currently calling the shots in DC!


39 posted on 03/13/2010 11:13:49 AM PST by CaliforniaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon

We will stand shoulder to shoulder then!


40 posted on 03/13/2010 11:55:53 AM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; ForGod'sSake

That is a really interesting issue. The Migratory Bird Treaty was the first treaty used in combination with the Interstate Commerce clause to give the federal government the power to regulate private natural resource use. This expanded into the federal Endangered Species Act.

There is an excellent Australian synopsis about the issues of treaty making and federalism: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/treaty/report/ (Chapters 3 and 10) It explains how the International Community dislikes the problems that our federal form poses in approving and implementing treaties. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties assumes that there is a sovereign at the top that has the capacity to enter into a treaty. In our system, the People are sovereign and power is fractionalized among layers and branches of government. With treaties that reach into domestic matters, that poses a real problem.

It also explains that International Law can apply to a country that has not even signed a treaty. You can see where this would be a problem when Supreme Court Judges believe that International Law should be taken into consideration.

Some older treaties include a federal clause, but other governments don’t like this as they are bound and we are not. Sometimes we use a reservation. An example is the following federal clause from article 34 of the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage:

“The following provisions shall apply to those State Parties to this Convention which have a federal or non-unitary constitutional system:

“(a) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of the federal or central legislative power, the obligations of the federal or central government shall be the same as for those States Parties which are not federal States;”

“(b) with regard to the provisions of this Convention, the implementation of which comes under the legal jurisdiction of individual constituent States, countries, provinces or cantons that are not obliged by the constitutional system of the federation to take legislative measures, the federal government shall inform the competent authorities of such States, countries, provinces, or cantons of the said provisions, with its recommendation for their adoption.”

Generally, treaties made pursuant to the Constitution are the supreme law of the land on an equal footing with federal legislation. However, both implementing legislation and treaty provisons may be superceded by subsequent modifying or annulling federal legislation. The duty of the Courts “is to construe and give effect to the latest expression of the sovereign will.”

Supposedly, treaties should not give the federal government authority that has not been delegated to it in the Constitution. In implementing a treaty, Congress cannot abrogate the structural separation of authority under constitutional principles of dual sovereignty and assume either reserved State powers or powers reserved to the people. Under the principles of dual sovereignty, Congress may not impose legislation upon the States, although it may recommend implementing legislation to the States. Federal legislation must act directly upon individuals. The Courts will nullify State legislation that is contrary to “self-executing” treaty provisions or construe such legislation in harmony with a treaty.

In my (non-exhaustive) research, I came upon the following relevant cases that examined the treaty powers:

Justice Field’s opinion in De Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890):

“...That the treaty power of the United States extends to all proper subjects of negotiation between our government and the governments of other nations is clear. It is also clear that the protection which should be afforded to the citizens of one country owning property in another, and the manner in which that property may be transferred, devised, or inherited, are fitting subjects for such negotiation, and of regulation by mutual stipulations between the two countries. As commercial intercourse increases between different countries, the residence of citizens of one country within the territory of the other naturally follows; and the removal of their disability from alienage to hold, transfer, and inherit property, in such cases, tends to promote amicable relations. Such removal has been, within the present century, the frequent subject of treaty arrangement. The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government, or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself, and of that of the states. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent. Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 541, 5 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 995. But, with these exceptions, it is not perceived that there is any limit to the questions which can be adjusted touching any matter which is properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199; Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259; Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 J.S. 483; 8 Ops. Atty. Gen. 417; People v. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381.

Justice Sutherland in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) (This is a good case to read):

“It will contribute to the elucidation of the question if we first consider the differences between the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs. That there are differences between them, and that these differences are fundamental, may not be doubted.”

In 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert observed that the Court has “regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution [U.S.] over a treaty.”

As I recall, Larry Beecraft did some good research on treaties and municipal powers: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/TREATIES.html


41 posted on 03/13/2010 12:52:54 PM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Danae

I agree...it’s a huge message and then some...finally the states are standing..now if they will all come together... and take their stand in Washington! Governors Arise!


42 posted on 03/13/2010 10:14:52 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon

I cashed mine six months ago and went to a Credit Union...Exceptional service! after years of dealing with banks..the whole experience was refreshing beyond measure. They were surpurb! Highly recommend a Credit Union..and your funds are still insured.


43 posted on 03/13/2010 10:19:39 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marsh2
Much more to digest from your post but this struck me because it's something I have suspected for some time:

It explains how the International Community dislikes the problems that our federal form poses in approving and implementing treaties.

Which helps to explain(as if it were needed) our leaders' propensity to consolidate power in DC to better comform to the majority of the world's governing styles. We The Sovereign People of America are standing in the way.

44 posted on 03/13/2010 11:05:46 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake
I suppose it’s indicative of the depravity of academia generally and and legal “scholars” in particular.

Let them spew their nonsense as the await the National Razor... Intellectuals? Bah...

45 posted on 03/14/2010 10:19:57 AM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
"This would violate the U.S. Constitution if challenged," Frank Ravitch, a professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, wrote in an e-mail.

They use the Constitution to support their fascist crap then they tell us it is a living document and not applicable to anything they stand against. Either we have a constitution or we don't if we don't, let's go hunting!

46 posted on 03/14/2010 10:21:54 AM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
We will stand shoulder to shoulder then!

Or, we could position our vehicles strategically to shut down the interstate system in national protest of being overthrown by communists. Just stop the car, put on the parking break. Lock the doors and go have yourself a beer or two while tuning into CNN!

47 posted on 03/14/2010 10:24:20 AM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CaliforniaCon

CaliforniaCon, you are lucky that you are able to cash out w/out penalty. Even if they don’t dip (which they will, because its the only reserve of liquidity that could get near bailing out SS), you will payer lower tax rates this year than you will before they begin jacking up taxes to pay for this mad spending. I am not a financial advisor, but i do have common sense and foresight. I have quite a few years to go, but there is no doubt that they will be jacking up taxes, which your 401k/IRA will be subject to, even if they don’t steal your IRA.


48 posted on 03/14/2010 11:52:11 AM PDT by ChinaThreat (3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: alrea

That’s how I read it too... but I’m no expert.


49 posted on 03/14/2010 3:48:19 PM PDT by Seadog Bytes (OPM - The Liberal 'solution' to every societal problem. (Other People's Money))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

50 posted on 03/14/2010 3:58:10 PM PDT by Seadog Bytes (OPM - The Liberal 'solution' to every societal problem. (Other People's Money))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson