Skip to comments.Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare despite Supreme Court ruling
Posted on 06/30/2012 2:58:57 AM PDT by Libloather
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare despite Supreme Court ruling
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket 18 hrs ago
The Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law on Thursday, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it.
"We're not going to start implementing Obamacare," Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. "We're committed to working to elect Gov. Romney to repeal Obamacare."
"Here in Louisiana we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we're not implementing the exchanges," Jindal said. "We don't think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana. We're going to do what we can to fight it."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The states have lost the power to the feds because of the candy the feds hand out to them but it comes at a cost. This is a start to regain that power
Despite the court ruling, there is still a chance that Republicans in Congress can repeal much of the law next year even if they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Because Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the mandate to purchase health insuranceone of the key provisions of the lawwas a tax, Republicans can use a procedure called "budget reconciliation" to pass a repeal bill that requires only a simple majority to pass. But this scenario relies on the Republicans' ability to win the White House, keep the majority in the House and gain enough seats in the Senate.This is a tax.
We have to repeal this tax.
You repeal taxes at the ballot box.
Tell all your friends: The Democrat Party is the party of taxes and the Supreme Court just affirmed that fact.
So says Wisconsin and Texas. I think Florida too, they are opting out.
More to follow suit very soon.
If its a red state Obama will hate them.
Maybe somebody here with better constitutional knowledge then me can answer, but if 2/3rds of the states reject the Obamatax is that not effectively a constitutional amendment?
There’s no such thing as effectively a constitutional amendment.
An exact, official process must be followed in order to amend the constitution.
I’m glad about Jindal, but he’s certainly not alone:
GOP governors vow to ignore Obamacare
Oh, what a breath of fresh air this morning!
I do believe you are right, hopefully this can be clarified.
There are so many avenues taking off on this.
All those states which oppose Obamacare should adopt resolutions of nullification which are identical.
Further steps should be taken at the state level to prevent Federalization of the National Guard in any of these states, including recall of all National Guard units from any details outside those respective states.
We can anticipate Obama and his racist puppet Holder using the Federal Courts to attempt to enforce Obamacare.
Constitutional Amendment Process
Please see post #12, for a link to the exact process that must be followed in order to amend the constitution.
It isn’t something some states kind of fall into by virtue of opposing something the federales are doing.
I love me some Bobby! ! ! ! ! !
The bottom line for me is that no matter what, states should refuse to implement Obamacare. It’s fine to hope for Obama’s election defeat, but no matter what, and no matter when, if push comes to shove the states must refuse to implement.
Already the feds have given hundreds of waivers for Obamacare to favored groups.
If everybody doesn’t have to suffer from Obamacare, then nobody should suffer from it.
Apart from its breathtaking unconstitutionality, if laws are to be selectively and unevenly and unfairly enforced and implemented, then those of us who weren’t so favorably treated must refuse them.
States can also refuse it under the banner of religious freedom. Any state that implements Obamacare will be complicit with its attack on religious liberty under the Constitution.
There are many grounds, but that’s one of the strongest.
Does anyone know where my governor - creep Chris Christie - stands?
I totally agree with you.
Its time to throw down the gauntlet.
Either patriotic Americans take action NOW, or will loose America to Marxists, Atheists, Muslims and Statist progressives.
I’m still waiting to see what “Wonderboy” Chris Christie does here. I’m fairly confident that this posterboy for Northeastern RINOs will implement Obamacare in New Jersey.
I wonder what Ann Coulter will say THEN?
The Tenth Amendment lives. Good.
Some sand in the gearbox of the finely tuned monster law.
At this point in time, a constitutional amendment would be an exercise in futility.
Not a single branch of government follows the Constitution. The Supreme Court has taken on the role of amending the Constitution.
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 doesnt 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!!!!!!!
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 Congresss passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Thomas Jeffersons 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 governments 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 governments 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 governments 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?
No. 3/4 of states is required. Read Article V.
The only trouble with this is that it’s really no skin off Obama’s back if states refuse to implement. What those states will be doing is causing their citizens to be taxed to pay for Obamacare without receiving any of the “benefits” of Obamacare. So, for Obama, it’s great if a state doesn’t comply - free money that can be spread around to pay for the benefits for the other states.
States are forgetting one thing. Obama just won big with Arizona. What’s to say the administration doesn’t take these states to court and do the same thing?
I hope so, at least this might keep the federal usurption of power in the national spotlight.
The States that do comply are going to have to raise their taxes.
The way it is right now, people in red states the states most likely to comply, can least afford a tax increase.
Scott (FL) was on Greta last night explaining this. He basically said they (governments) always lie their faces off about this stuff - “Take this money, we’ll pay for it, just play by our rules” - and then once you take it, you realize their methods don’t work, you are left in a hole and the money is not enough and tends to dry up anyway.
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.