Posted on 06/30/2012 2:58:57 AM PDT by Libloather
Our governor has been strangely silent on this issue.
Maybe with the mandate, but the court did rule states could opt out of medicaid expansion without the punishment of taking existing funding.
“If everybody doesn’t have to suffer from Obamacare, then nobody should suffer from it.”
We can give ourselves a waiver and assure the gov’t that we will forcibly resist if they decide to resent it. Wouldn’t be hard. Wouldn’t be any fun but it wouldn’t be hard.
Christie is running for VP so he isn’t goung to talk.
And people think he’s such a stand-up guy. If they only knew...
States opting out, unions opting out, Moslems opting out, American Indians opting out, Scientology cultists opting out.
All a person needs to do is claim they are a veteran native American with religious beliefs against obamacare and they are scott free.
At least in theory. Leftest judges have been amending the Constitution through judical fiat since the 1930s.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
We are well into that "long train of of abuses and usurpations," and "absolute Tyranny over these States" must not stand.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"
I did not advocate a constitutional amendment.
Someone was asking a question pertaining to one, and I answered it.
I’m advocating state rebellion.
Just ask Elizabeth Warren how easy it is to call yourself whatever you want.
I’m only referring to the process of getting an amendment officially written into the Constitution.
And to clarify, again, I’m not advocating that.
A question was asked pertaining to that, and I replied to it.
I’m advocating state rebellion.
NULLIFICATION BABY... IT IS THE JEFFERSONIAN WAY!!!!!!!
LLS
by Gennady Stolyarov II
The doctrine of nullification, i.e., the idea that states have the right to unilaterally render void an act of the federal government that they perceive to be contrary to the Constitution, finds its origins in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, most notably his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, written to protest the Federalist Congress’s passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions claim that the U. S. Constitution was a compact among the several states-whereby the states delegated certain limited powers to the U.S. government; any undelegated power exercised by the U. S. government is thus void.
Furthermore, the general government is not the final and authoritative judge of its own powers, since that would make the government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers-but rather the parties to the contract, the states, have each an equal right to judge for themselves whether the Constitution has been violated as well as “the mode and measure of redress”-since there is no common judge of such matters among them.
Thus, every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory “all assumptions of power by others”-i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.
The Kentucky Resolution uses the Tenth Amendment to justify a strict construction of the general government’s powers; any powers not expressly delegated to the U. S. government remain the province of the states or the people, and any exercise of those powers by the general government is void and can be struck down by the states on that basis.
Furthermore, Jefferson warns against construing the “necessary and proper” clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers by the general government; the intent of the clause was to only enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extend the general government’s scope. Otherwise, this part of the Constitution would be used “to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.”
Jefferson counsels the states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitutions and not hesitant to strike down unconstitutional measures by Congress or the President; he writes that “free government is founded in jealously and not in confidence” and therefore urges that “no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
In other words, the states should not trust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply because those particular federal officials might be trusted to use those powers benevolently; this kind of “confidence of man” leads to the destruction of free government.
Now we see which red or possibly blue states have the balls to defy the Feds on Obamacaretax.
Our nations founders would want it this way.
They're talking about it here in New Hampshire too.
We just got voter ID up here, so I'm hopeful.
If you consider that on the morning of July 5, 1776 each of what had been 13 colonies awoke as soverign states, beholden to no other power on earth.
It was only the necessity of some cooperative mechanism between them that brought about the Continental Congress and later the U.S. Constitution with its delegation of limited powers and retention of all others.
How far we’ve strayed.
List of states’ rights governors growing.
BTW, States have rights, the federalis don’t
We don't need a filibuster proof Senate. Recall that Harry Reid only need 51 votes to pass Obamacare. He said it was not a tax bill therefore a simple majority was all that was needed. I think it can be repealed with 51 votes in the Senate.You are right. However, why not get a filibuster proof majority? Just for the fun of it?
:)
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.