States Can Nullify Obamacare

Treasure_Hunter

Administrator
Staff member
Jul 27, 2006
49,450
57,770
Florida
Detector(s) used
Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
On Rush Limbaugh’s Thursday program, George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams outlined the case that states can nullify Obamacare, citing Thomas Jefferson’s 1789 Kentucky Resolution, which was a claim that the U. S. Constitution is a compact among the several states, and any power not delegated to the U.S. government is void.

“I think the American citizens ought to press their state governors and legislatures just to nullify the law — just to plain nullify it and say, ‘The citizens of such-and-such-a state don’t have to obey Obamacare because it’s unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says,’” Williams said.

Williams cited Marbury v. Madison, which said “all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void” to further the case for nullification from the states.

Nullification is a doctrine introduced in the infancy of the United States and was what some have suggested led to the Civil War. As far as the legal precedent of nullification and how it led to the Civil War, Williams said he doubted the repercussions would as serious as they were in 1861.

“I think two things are different this time,” he said. “First, most Americans are against Obamacare. And secondly, I don’t believe — and you call me up and tell me if I’m wrong about this — I don’t believe that you could find a United States soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.”

Town Hall

5/16/2012

Should We Obey All Laws?

Walter E. Williams

Let’s think about whether all acts of Congress deserve our respect and obedience. Suppose Congress enacted a law — and the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional — requiring American families to attend church services at least three times a month. Should we obey such a law? Suppose Congress, acting under the Constitution’s commerce clause, enacted a law requiring motorists to get eight hours of sleep before driving on interstate highways. Its justification might be that drowsy motorists risk highway accidents and accidents affect interstate commerce. Suppose you were a jury member during the 1850s and a free person were on trial for assisting a runaway slave, in clear violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Would you vote to convict and punish?

A moral person would find each one of those laws either morally repugnant or to be a clear violation of our Constitution. You say, “Williams, you’re wrong this time. In 1859, in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 constitutional.” That court decision, as well as some others in our past, makes my case. Moral people can’t rely solely on the courts to establish what’s right or wrong. Slavery is immoral; therefore, any laws that support slavery are also immoral. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Soon, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, euphemistically titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.*There is absolutely no constitutional authority for Congress to force any American to enter into a contract to buy any good or service. But if the court rules that Obamacare is constitutional, what should we do?

State governors and legislators ought to summon up the courage of our Founding Fathers in response to the 5th Congress’ Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Led by Jefferson and James Madison, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 were drafted where legislatures took the position that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. They said, “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government … (and) whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” The 10th Amendment to our Constitution supports that vision: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In a word, if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional, citizens should press their state governors and legislatures to nullify the law. You say, “Williams, the last time states got into this nullification business, it led to a war that cost 600,000 lives.” Two things are different this time. First, most Americans are against Obamacare, and secondly, I don’t believe that you could find a U.S. soldier who would follow a presidential order to descend on a state to round up or shoot down fellow Americans because they refuse to follow a congressional order to buy health insurance.

Congress has already gone far beyond the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. In Federalist No. 45, Madison explained: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” That vision has been turned on its head; it’s the federal government whose powers are numerous and indefinite, and those of the state are now few and defined.

Former slave Frederick Douglass advised: “Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. …

The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

States Can Nullify Obamacare - Obamacare - Forced Health Insurance

Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
 

GOV. SCOTT: FLORIDA WILL NOT COMPLY WITH OBAMACARE RULING

In the late 1820s, in reaction to taxes levied by an overreaching federal government, South Carolina took a stand. Leaning heavily on what we today would called a “10th Amendment movement,” the Palmetto state recognized the people as the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn’t constitutional. The state, rather than the federal government, got to draw lines in the sand that weren’t to be crossed.

The tariff of 1828 crossed those lines in South Carolina’s opinion, thus they declared the tariff null and void within the boundaries of their state.

Enter Florida in 2012, some 184 years after the nullification crisis began. Republican Gov. Rick Scott says Florida will not comply with the Obamacare ruling—they*“will not expand the Medicaid program in order to lower the number of uninsured residents, nor will Florida set up a state-run health exchange, a marketplace where people who need insurance policies could shop for them.”

Speaking to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, Gov. Scott said, “We care about having a health care safety net for the vulnerable Floridians, but this is an expansion that just doesn't make any sense.”

The original nullification crisis ended with the federal government agreeing to repeal the problematic tax scheme over a number of years. It would be a boon to freedom if Republican governors like Scott, and others who say they’ll join him, are able to withstand the pressure to go along with the federal government on Obamcare, thus contributing significantly to the efforts to repeal this monstrosity.

Whether the year is 1791, 1828, or 2012, the language of the 10th amendment is clear:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In Florida’s case, Gov. Scott recognizes that the federal government is reaching for a power not delegated to it.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...s-State-Will-Not-Comply-With-Obamacare-Ruling

Sent from Samsung Note3
 

I just heard Florida Blue is cancelling 80% of their private policies here(that was Bill O'reily).

I would say, what's up with Rick, he didn't get on o-care train? :laughing7:
He either getting no kickbacks or he's banned from playing healthcare nowadays?

I do hope he's got a grip on it, for our sake!
 

Non-Compliance with Obamacare In Florida Riles Obama Administration
September 19, 2013

HomeHealth Care,*Issues,*NullificationNon-Compliance with Obamacare …

Florida continues to keep an arm’s length distance from the Patient Care and Affordability Act, and the state’s actions are creating impediments to the implementation of Obamacare.

First,the legislature opted not to create state run health exchanges during the 2012 session. Now Obamacare “Navigators” are*barred from enrolling people into PACA on Florida Department of Health property.

An exception has been granted for federally qualified health centers operating within local health departments. There are 41 such clinics in Florida. These entities have received approximately $8 million in federal grants to assist uninsured Floridians with enrolling in the increasingly unpopular and unconstitutional health care scheme.

County Health Department staff may accept informational material from Navigators to hand out to health department patients who request it. The access prohibition order was made by the department’s Deputy Secretary for State Wide Services C. Meade Grigg. Ashley Carr, a spokesperson for the Department of Health issued this statement regarding the order

“Navigators are not acting on behalf of the Department of Healthand this program has raised privacy concerns due to the consumer information that will be gathered for use in a federal database.”

Florida Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi both*expressed concernsover the security of private information given to Navigators.

“I don’t want a convicted felon having our citizens’ personal information. We need to know how they’re going to be trained, number two, who’s going to monitor them, who’s going to be liable if someone’s identity is stolen?” Bondi asked.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration takes a completely different view of Florida’s putting up a road block in front of the Navigators. Their reaction exposes the federal government’s growing concern with continued non-cooperation with PACA by the States.

“This is another*blatant and shameful attempt to intimidate groups who will be working to inform Americans about their new health insurance options*and help them enroll in coverage, just like Medicare counselors have been doing for years,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesman*Fabien Levy said.

Non-compliance is a simple yet effective tool to blunting federal tyranny. Throwing up a wall of simple yet effectively frustrating measures can slow and eventually halt even the biggest federal monstrosities.

Tenth Amendment Founder and Executive Director Michael Boldin*writes*“A state or local bill is passed which bans compliance with or assistance to a particular federal law. We recognize, as James Madison did in*Federalist #46, and Judge Andrew Napolitano did earlier this year, that mass noncompliance will render federal laws “nearly impossible to enforce,”*as Napolitano said. *Madison affirmed this when he wrote that if a number of states were to refuse to comply, it “would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”-


http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...rida-riles-obama-administration/#.UmsJWlDD_qA


Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
 

Last edited:
Just curious if conservative constitutionalists refuse SS once they get back what they put into it. Or do any sign up for welfare? Surely not!
None can be taking unemployment checks instead of applying their American exceptionalism. I can rest easy knowing no conservative in congress or senate is letting the Gov pay for their health insurance. Of course not one is signed up for SS disability. Right?
 

TH what is your problem with obamacare?

If you were in charge what would you offer as an alternative?
 

Just curious if conservative constitutionalists refuse SS once they get back what they put into it. Or do any sign up for welfare? Surely not!
None can be taking unemployment checks instead of applying their American exceptionalism. I can rest easy knowing no conservative in congress or senate is letting the Gov pay for their health insurance. Of course not one is signed up for SS disability. Right?

Jeff, repay me every dime I have paid in SS the last 53 years, the money my employers paid in on my behalf and the interest on the money paid for the last 53 years and I will happily take it and no more.

You seem to forget it was my money to begin with, money I paid in and money my employers paid in on my behalf. My SS paid in year to date is over 135k+ by me and another 135k+ paid in on my behalf by my employer plus the interest it would have earned.

Sent from my Note3
 

Last edited:
TH what is your problem with obamacare?

If you were in charge what would you offer as an alternative?

It violates our Constitution, the government does not have the right under our Constitution to force citizens to buy health insurance.

I am against socialized medinine.

My insurance rates has doubled the last two tears due to bonightmarecare.

It adds trillions of new debt to a national debt already out of control...

Take your pick....



Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
 

Might want to check out Cohens vs. Virginia. SC decision reaffirmed the superiority of Federal jurisdiction over State...
Supremacy clause of Article Vi of the constitution. And to just put it bluntly, nullification is nonsence. No way, shape or form. Not then, not now...
 

Last edited:
Might want to check out Cohens vs. Virginia. SC decision reaffirmed the superiority of Federal jurisdiction over State...
Supremacy clause of Article Vi of the constitution. And to just put it bluntly, nullification is nonsence. No way, shape or form. Not then, not now...

10th Admendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I am fed up with the government exceeding their authority. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, not a socialist state, and certainly not a banana republic.

I am fed up with people trying to change what this country was founded as, a Constitutional Republic, our Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND period.

Our constitution does not give the government or a president the power to do as it pleases. The purpose of our Constitution was to restrict what the government can do, not what the people can do.

The 10th admendment clearly spells that out. No where in the Constitution does it say the government has the right to force it's citizens to buy a mandated government insurance under penalty of law, but it does say........

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Again for those who missed it.....

BILL OF RIGHTS
10TH AMENDMENT

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."








Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
 

Austin:

I agree with you. I think the Civil War settled the nullification issue, the issue of states leaving the Union, and several other matters, as well.

Meanwhile, some food for thought:

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

The ink was barely dry on the PPACA when the first of many lawsuits to block the mandated health insurance provisions of the law was filed in a Florida District Court.

The pleadings, in part, read -

“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage.”

It turns out, the Founding Fathers would beg to disagree.

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution…

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Forbes

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo
 

I find it Amazing that the Bo and the entirety of the Progressive machine lied, and continues to lie about his train wreck. And did it vehemently during the election.
If The "O" had told a modicum of truth about himself, his intentions or the soaring costs Americans will incur he would have been defeated by either of his second rate "competitors".
 

Might want to check out Cohens vs. Virginia. SC decision reaffirmed the superiority of Federal jurisdiction over State...
Supremacy clause of Article Vi of the constitution. And to just put it bluntly, nullification is nonsence. No way, shape or form. Not then, not now...

Here ya go:

"The Supreme Court relied on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction in "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." The Court found that the Constitution provides no exceptions to this grant of jurisdiction for cases arising in the state courts or for cases in which a state is a party. Therefore, under the language of the Constitution, all cases arising under federal law are within the Constitution's grant of appellate jurisdiction. This conclusion was reinforced, said the Court, by the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which makes federal law superior to state law."
 

So if SCOTUS rules the 2nd is null and void or the 1st amend is no longer valid you think we should except it because SCOTUS ruled it's done.

Supreme Court can and has made mistakes, Roe vs Wade is a prime example...


Roe vs Wade....To date 56.7 million, that is 56,700,000 American kids have been murdered by abortion in this country.

Left is ready to suspend our 2nd amendment rights because a few kids were murdered by a few very sick people, yet 3300+ a day die from abortion and they don't bat an eye..

http://www.numberofabortions.com/



AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


What happens if 40 states nulify something. Do you think they will send troops to forty states to force enforcement.

When the Federal Government exceeds their Constitutional powers in the Constitution it is the right and duty of American citizens to resist....




Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
 

So if SCOTUS rules the 2nd is null and void or the 1st amend is no longer valid you think we should except it because SCOTUS ruled it's done.

Supreme Court can and has made mistakes, Roe vs Wade is a prime example...


Roe vs Wade....To date 56.7 million, that is 56,700,000 American kids have been murdered by abortion in this country.

Left is ready to suspend our 2nd amendment rights because a few kids were murdered by a few very sick people, yet 3300+ a day die from abortion and they don't bat an eye..

Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973



AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


What happens if 40 states nulify something. Do you think they will send troops to forty states to force enforcement.

When the Federal Government exceeds their Constitutional powers in the Constitution it is the right and duty of American citizens to resist....




Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free

So you are willing to open up the Roe V Wade debate by giving your OPINION on the matter?
 

So you are willing to open up the Roe V Wade debate by giving your OPINION on the matter?

Not opinion fact, 56.7 million American kids murdered so far....

Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
 

TH, dont be ridiculous. It is mainly a religious issue and you KNOW as well as I do that millions of people do not share your views.

Leave religion out of it.

Wonder what the voices of the 56.7 million dead kids would say....

Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free
 

pat-tekker-cat:

Are those "junk insurance" policies? The ones that really don't cover anything?

Good luck to all,

~The Old Bookaroo
 

Leave religion out of it.

Wonder what the voices of the 56.7 million dead kids would say....

Sent from my new Galaxy Note3
now Free

Impossible. If you want to leave religion out of it, why bring up what is arguably the MOST controversial topic in America? Dont start things you cant finish.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top