[ForGod'sSake]

This has been a bit confusing for me; from earlier in the week re the OK HOUSE:

Legislators override health care veto (Lawsuit challenge of Commiecare™ revived in Oklahoma)

From the video HERE, State Senator Brogdon confirms the OK senate did NOT override the RAT governor's veto of that piece of legislation. The result was the measures taken indicated in this thread.

That may or may not clear things up but I did my best. ;^)

[ForGod'sSake]

Oklahoma legislature taking the fight to odinga and his RAT minions!

Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.

I've stopped monitoring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.

Additional Resources:

Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Sovereign States
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES

[Pantera]

OK should get rid of that deadbeat Dem governor and elect Constitutionally sound Brogden.

[o_zarkman44]

Missouri votes on the “Health Care Freedom Act” on Aug 3rd. Nothing is mentioned about Missouri. We wanted the Constitutional Amendment, but the State Senate version was a change in statute and the House compromised. The Missouri Bill bypasses the governor completely and goes to a vote of the people.

But might I add WAY TO GO OKLAHOMA!

[Libloather]

As Oklahoma goes. so goes the nation.

[Brett66]

Oh yeah! With governor golly gee-whiz out in November we’ll be able to stop this at the state’s borders, we could also band together with surrounding states to get health plans across state lines.

Since the Federal government won’t do it, states will!

[patton]

a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit “forced participation in a health care system,”

Medicaid/Medicare Tax ...

[teletech]

I thought OK was a conservative state. How did they end up with a RAT Gov?

[NTHockey]

>>In all cases, the states assert that the federal mandate on individuals carrying health insurance or pay penalties, violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the US Constitution. They also invoke the Tenth Amendment reserving to states all powers not delegated to the federal government.

Article I, Section 2 sounds like a weak argument, since it defines reprention by population and direct taxation by population (i.e. everybody).

Article I, Section 9 is a stronger argument, since it says no bills of attainder (i.e. bills that have fines and or prison) and that have a negative impact on a person or group (i.e. seniors).

Of course, the Tenth Amendment is the strongest argument. The delegated powers do NOT include health care - and several other usurpations - and as such that power is reserved to the people.

Now here is the $64,000 question - if the federal government prevails and the SC rules that the act IS constitutional, what are the options left? For IF it is ruled constitutional, the states have ZERO powers, save those the federal government grants to the states, and the contract (i.e. the Constitution) between the states and a federal government is broken.

And the $64 trillion question - should the contract be broken, can states “secede” or is it even necessary? The states had better be ready for it.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

As a practical matter, all a state can refuse to do is to set up a state run health care exchange, or set up one with substantially different rules from those mandated by federal law, in either case the federal government is empowered to set up a federally run exchange. There is nothing such states can do to prevent the establishment of the federally run exchange or to prevent individuals from participating in it if they wish, so this kind of symbolic resistance will likely have the effect of:

1) *Increasing* federal participation in health-care funding and rule-making.

2) Reducing the cost control effectiveness in states which set up simultaneous state and federal exchange systems as a split membership will reduce bargaining power of each.

IMO one thing doesn’t get enough attention in most discussions here is that while “Health Care Reform” is politically unpopular, some individual provisions of the bill - including some of the most politically and economically significant - poll at 70% or higher popularity, so it’s unrealistic to suppose that we are ever going to return to the system as it existed prior to passage of the bill - that ship has sailed.

[Neoliberalnot]

Another State with True Statesmen for leaders bucking tyranny from the DC Empire.