Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/01/2012 6:35:21 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
Despite Thursday’s controversial Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, states retain the right and authority to nullify the healthcare law, and the state of Missouri, among many others, is undertaking efforts to do just that. According to Missouri legislators, regardless of the High Court's ruling, Missouri voters will maintain the opportunity to vote for or against the so-called Affordable Healthcare Act in November. And Missouri is not the only state seeking to circumvent ObamaCare.
Yahoo News reports, “Several Republican governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law will be repealed or struck down by the Court.” Now that the court has issued a ruling in favor of the healthcare law, however, Jindal continues to contend that he will not be complying with the law.
States may also fall in line with Louisiana and Missouri and nullify ObamaCare. In the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers … a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
The Tenth Amendment Center indicates that the states have a number of methods by which they may nullify a law, including through state law, a statement amendment, or a voters' referendum.
The Nullification Project notes:
After today’s Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare," it remains clear that the people cannot rely on the high court to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution. In such cases, the Founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, have provided We the People and the States, a final check on the power of the three branches of the federal government: Nullification.”
And states should not fear the consequences of nullification. As per Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, Congress is not permitted to penalize states that refuse to implement ObamaCare. In the majority decision, Chief Justice Roberts stated, “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."
I’d rather see the Federal Government come into a State and try to setup and enforce this! No time like the present to refuse Unconstitutional laws.
I think the states can opt out and must. It is time to take our freedom back
in just the last couple of days there is already almost a half dozen states affirming to opt out against the Obamataxcare Act.
I expect a dozen more by weeks end.
lets see who is laughing and high fiving then.
VERY bad idea.
A Constitutional Convention opens a Pandora's Box you do NOT want to be anywhere near.
Such a gathering could (and chances are WOULD) set the stage for a wholesale vacating of our founding document.
Ping
“Do you NOT understand that this is a Republic, NOT a Democracy! We elect those that are suppose to uphold both the law and the Constitution. When our Representatives and the courts ignore the Constitution, what is left to do?”
Go to a system like the Swiss have, under which issues of importance become the subject of national referendums — everyone gets to vote on them, and the majority wins.
“Mob rule”, some will say. My reply is, how much worse is that from what we’re getting now? The tyranny of the majority, vis-a-vis the tyranny of the oligarchy?
Or, to paraphrase William F. Buckley, I would rather be governed by the votes of 200,000,000 Americans, than by the votes of 535 corrupt members of Congress!
It is a part of Obamacare - and unfunded later (as expected by the Federals). You take care of them now and we promise to provide you with lots of money now and much less later.
Just a normal promise of the bureaucrats in Washington.
Are you really for this? Do you really think that the States can afford this in future years?
Thanks for that.
What it means for me is that I could not morally convict even a bad bad bad man if they added ‘it’s also a hate crime’ to what he did. Hard to imagine acquitting on a clear assault and battery or destruction of property ... or even arson, but if they added ‘oh, and he did it in hate’ so added hate to the charges, and the actual crime and ‘hate’ were conflated in the same charge ... I’d go not-guilty even if 11 to 1 ... even if it made me sick.
I guess then an attendant question would be ‘when hate is included in the charge - are they charged together or separately?’
As a kid I came to know a hypothetical situation where the police falsified the hypothetical confession, and the charges were 10 times the reality. “Hey that’s not what I said!!!!!” The hypothetical kid said as they re-worded his story, writing it down. “Don’t worry, you’ll have a chance to tell you’re story” the hypothetical kid was told. The kid was advised by his lawyer who wasn’t present at the confession to plea based on the ‘facts’ the police had (the confession) ... and were it not for a keen eyed judge who through the case out 2 years later it would have been uglier than it was. Some say ‘a conservative is a liberal mugged by reality’ ... this hypothetical kid was a kid ‘mugged by the police.’ Same outcome but a little more extreme, deep mistrust, grounded in personal experience, for any capital “S” State based on personal history ... of that hypothetical :-) kid of course.
Small town keystone cops and a prosecutor eager for dramatic convictions. The amount of power we give other people is pretty unbelievable. We only truly see that when we’ve been falsely convicted (too late for most people) ... or waited 16 weeks for rationed emergency surgery in Canada ... (at which point it’s really really too late to wake up - dead.)
Arrggggghhhhh. The evil of government really is evil, not just a nuisance to be tolerated. That’s for any who haven’t crossed the threshold from ‘the State is a nuisance - keep it small is a nice principle! Woohoo!’ to ‘The State is a clear and present (meaning now) threatening force in my life at all times, no matter how innocent we are. Only I/we can keep it small, at any cost.’ ... sorry for wandering - it’s a bit of an emotional issue for that ... eh ... hypothetical kid.
I know the Fed will sucker punch the states with big money promise for the first year and retract the offer the second year.
I am hoping that the ruling prohibits punishing the states , allows ObamaCareTax to be stopped.
Since when does Medicare or Medicaid have any effect on what the government is providing?
One, the Government (Federal and State) is providing almost all of the cost.
So, you think that allowing many more folks to enroll in Medicaid is going to reduce cost? (Obamacare)
Does that mean that so many without coverage are going to sign up are much less than the cost of medical care? Are you really serious? (Obamacare)
How about the cost of Medicare (500 billion removed from them and placed into the cost of Obamacare- Medicaid). I guess that will reduce costs even more. Well, how about the bill in Congress that reduces the costs of Doctors providing case to Medicare patients, It is being reduced. There are many Doctors leaving both the practice and not accepting Medicare as an insurance agent - so what to do, hey?
Ah yeah, I can see the benefits of Obamacare but I do pity the costs that are forced upon my children and grand children! No problem, I am a selfish son-of-a-bitch!
The Fed has never retracted from punishing the States via the money excelsior. The major problem is that the States seem to continue to succumb to these efforts. Thus the loss of our republic.
BTTT!
I have some sympathy for your ideas...but tend to refute them out of idealistic ideals I guess.
I know that what your are saying should be right in most instances but I really worry about that becoming the law. I guess that I just don’t trust the majority of the electorate to actually vote for what is right (but will vote for what benefits them most) - ain’t that a hoot!
So while I agree with you, I would almost assuredly find out that this type of resolution would eventually end up too defective to support.
So, it is with regret (really, I actually liked your idea) that I can NOT support your supposition.
Actually you have be thinking...
We currently have a problem with Congress.. they are enslaved to outside interests and tend to vote to protect those interest.
Those that vote against them (seems like the majority at times) are likely pariahs and viewed as outlandish voters.
They (the Congress) do have a group mentality and if you don’t belong, well, go away...heh.
Most are obnoxious folks that got into office through their vocal abilities, not honesty, not believability, nothing else, just their personality. You have to understand that these folks are no different (sometimes much less) than our local Representatives. They are no smarter, just more ambitious to get elected to National office.
Anyway, all of this boils down to who you elect to national office. Do you really want this asshole running for Senator, Representative - understanding just why he is running and what we the stupid folk believe about him?
Sorry about that last sentence - couldn’t help myself when regarding the stupidity of our elected officials.
I think we need to rebel against all of these folks anyway - almost all are corrupt anyway...
Obama refuses to obey the law.
Why should the States or anyone else then obey the law?
Obama has set the president for legal disobedience.
No eff’n way...
I don’t trust the people..
We’d end up the USSA in no time.
I hope for both, and God willing we will have both.
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.