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governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law will be repealed or struck down by the Court.”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."
No, but I suppose Congress can TAX States that choose not to participate, right Justice Roberts?
“Such a gathering could (and chances are WOULD) set the stage for a wholesale vacating of our founding document.”
Precisely!!
I think it means that obamacare will still exist at the state level, but the States can opt out of paying the premiums for the poor via Medicaid. That’s how it works for the poor who get Medicare anyway. Because of the ruling, States won’t have to pay that in obamacare.
“Such a gathering could (and chances are WOULD) set the stage for a wholesale vacating of our founding document.”
###
That is already well under way.
The idea of a Constitutional Convention USED to be a very bad idea, in the days when the Constitution was largely respected.
With the ongoing, bipartisan ignoring of our founding, cornerstone Document, I’d say a Constitutional Convention is NOW a toss-up as to whether its a bad idea or not.
Kansas also, apparently. Now this article includes Missouri... I’m betting this movement will grow — just as the lawsuits did.
Would someone with some skills please create a map, a map updated as often as possible, at least daily of any new state opting out?
And if so you may add me to a ping list.
This feels hugh and seerious.
It will take far less than 50 years for a state to go belly up if they have to fund it. What some here don’t get is that this is not just about “principle” but about necessity. States HAVE to be able to balance their budgets (unlike the Fed. government that will just “print more money” or kick the can down the road because it’s all virtual money anyway). They have no choice but to “opt out” because they cannot afford this monstrous bill. It will send them to the poorhouse and destroy our healthcare at the same time. The die is cast. The choice has been made for them. They’re standing on the 10th amendment.
I’m afraid that wouldn’t be me. Sorry. Hopefully one will be available soon enough as the thing gains momentum.
“I don’t trust the people..”
Nor should you.
“We’d end up the USSA in no time.”
Kind of like now?
“Such a gathering could (and chances are WOULD) set the stage for a wholesale vacating of our founding document.”
Instead of the slow dismantling of the Constitution that is taking place now?
It could be argued that Chief Judicial Legislator Roberts drove the final stake in the heart of the Constitution.
“I’d be terrified to let anyone from this generation anywhere near a Constitutional Convention.”
As opposed to the generation before that wrote and passed Obamacare and is still in charge of DC?
I’m sorry, I didn’t express myself correctly.
I wouldn’t want any person involved in politics, at this point and time in history, near a Constitutional Convention. No one in our current establishment understands government should be limited.
For such a convention; you’d damn well better have a narrowly defined agenda. Otherwise we might end up with a several thousand page monstrosity much like the EU, or Obamacare.
Be careful what you wish for; You might find “happy” marriage enshrined in the document.
Yes, but if the feds set it up, the feds have to pay for it.
2. Who would set the agenda?
3. What would the scope of the convention be?
No less than former Chief Justice Warren Burger has said, "I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey."
Of course, maybe we could have two conventions: one for "us", one for "them." That, by definition, is "civil war."
(Which, ironically, may end up being our only option.)
And "the feds" are...?
(HINT: "The feds" derive "their" $$ from whom?)
I was under the impression that the Feds had to have money to fund the exchanges. I thought Congress had to authorize said funding. What am I missing?
Conservatives need to realize that Cloward–Piven strategy can work our way too.
You are correct, the original law fails to provide any funding for exchanges by the federal government. The funding would have to be passed by Congress.
“I wouldn’t want any person involved in politics, at this point and time in history, near a Constitutional Convention. “
I can understand this sentiment completely.
“No one in our current establishment understands government should be limited.”
Unfortunately, this seems to be the case. Roberts is case in point.
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.