Skip to comments.A Constitutional Opening - opting out of Medicaid mandate alternative to secession
Posted on 11/28/2012 5:09:42 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
...the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Last June, in NFIB v.Sebelius, the Supreme Court gave the act a mixed bill of constitutional health. It upheld the individual mandate by saying that it was constitutional under Congresss taxing power. However,it also ruled that Congress could not compel the states to expand their Medicaid programs by threatening to cut off all Medicaid subsidies if they did not do so. Imposing onerous new requirements in a program that already represents such a large part of the states budgets that they cant afford to lose federal subsidies,the Court ruled, is unconstitutional. This was the first significant limitation on the federal governments power to use the strings attached to fiscal subsidiesgrantsin-aid,as they used to be knownin order to make states implement federal policies.
Nearly all federal welfare programs are joint operations of Congress and the states. Congress sets the standards,and if the states devise programs that meet those standards,Congress matches,or more than matches,what the states spend on them. (Obamacare, in fact, has a teaser introductory rate that the new consumer-protection bureaucrats would surely outlaw if it were done by a private corporation:It picks up 90 percent of the tab for the early years of the programan offer the states could not refuse, Congress assumed.)
The old-age-pension part of Social Security is unique in its status as a fully federal program. In 1937,the Supreme Court accepted this program as constitutional under the taxing power. On this reasoning,if Congress in 2010 had repealed the current Medicaid law altogether and created a fully federal health-insurance system,that would have been constitutionally permissible under the taxing power. But such a move was politically impossible for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi,so they instead retained the grant-in-aid device. That choice gave the Court an opportunity to revive a constitutional limitation....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Another wonderful opportunity for the States to stand and declare “Amendment No. 10”!!!
Obamacare is but one of many reasons to seriously consider secession.
It WILL GRAB your interest if you read it slowly for content.
It's a beautiful thing.
Obamacare is but one of many reasons to seriously consider secession.”
...exactly! It’s in the top 3 but socialist judges, global warming taxes, abolishing IRA’s and literally hundreds of others. We’ve been so overwhelmed with heinous activity by this regime, I doubt that many can remember specifically the crimes against this nation and it’s citizens.
Arguing points of law with thugs.
This is great news. As long as residents can’t cross State lines to get Medicaid from another State.
However, it is also likely that it could not survive if a large number of states refused to go along with the Medicaid mandate. And opting out of the mandate is a constitutionally orthodox alternative to secession.
Which entirely misses the point, IMHO.
The States can 'opt out' of the mandate all day long, but their citizens will STILL be increasingly 'drained of their sustenance' via the illegitimate income tax.
THE primary duty of the States is to protect their Citizens, even if it means the only way to protect them from the feral federal government is to leave.
"If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once as a dissolution, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left are the dissolution of our Union with them or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation."
Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles
That’s a good conclusion pull quote (I used part of it for my title tease) but since the arguement isn’t terribly long or difficult to follow — a read of the entire article really explains it properly.
One of the very first reasons for the original 13 colonies to band together was to strenghten their capacity to protect overseas trade. This enhanced the revenue flows to each colony.
Each state will be evaluating the financial utility of its relationship to DC as it increasingly expects to be served rather than to serve.
BTW...there is a little tidbit in there that is worth pondering...
“It picks up 90 percent of the tab for the early years of the program an offer the states could not refuse, Congress assumed.)”
the fact that the state legislatures could see past this ...and that Federal legislature could not...is a testament to the corrupt lobbying process on K St in DC-which perverts the eyes and minds of whom and that which We the People pay to “look after OUR interests”....
Agree. Obama has so many ways to motivate or punish states that don't comply. If a state does not cooperate, how many other Federal programs suddenly don't operate for that state, emergencies don't get funded, key officials get special attention from the IRS, DOJ, etc. Also, the collapse of Obamacare, after it destroys the private insurance industry and drastically damages the health care industry, is a goal. Then in the ensuing chaos, Obama will offer single payer and government run facilities.
You’ve got a point there.
These folks are absolutely lawless. They passed 0bamacare around the law, so it’s rather ignorant of those still attempting to use the law to thwart them.
We’ll get single payer when Big Business can no longer carry the insurance load and demands it.
IOW - once the feds get you hooked, it can’t turn off the tap...
Which is why it won't work in the end. Power will work, not law.
It shifts the costs to the workers, not the companies. Many companies are lobbying for it.
That’s what I said.
I would be interested in what would happen if a state formed an exchanged, and then ended it. It had a state exchange, so the Federal Goberment would not have the authority to set up a federal exchange.
and no taxes could reasonably be collected if the state exchange was abolished.
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.