Former NH Democrat Chair, Kathy Sullivan, thinks that the "nullification" movement is a fringe thing?
Sometimes, I believe that the "Democrat leaders" just say things to just make it appear that something just isn't so. I hate to be her personal bubble buster, but when there is empirical evidence that directly contradicts what Kathy Sullivan (former NH Democrat Chair) would have the public THINK is not true, well, then I'm quite happy to oblige with a pin!
Once again, the recap:
Kathy Sullivan, over at BlueHampshire decided to revert to her belittling ways, so I fisked her. That done, we're not done as there are a couple more things to discuss:
1. Death is not the worst of evils - listening to this discredited nullification nonsense may be, however. There will not be a law in New Hampshire requiring legislative consent to the health insurance reform bill after it is signed into law, because luckily the majority of our representatives believe in our American constitution, unlike Itse.
My friend, Warner Todd Huston, has a post up over at RightWingNews about this very issue. It seems that, unlike what Kathy wants folks to believe, there are a LOT of people out there that think there is real merit to what the US Constitution literally says:
Louisiana State Senator A.G. Crowe (R, Slidell) is introducing a bill for the 2010 legislative session in Baton Rouge that would make Obamacare illegal if it violates state laws, effectively making Obamacare null and void in the Pelican State.
Senator Crowe states that his bill "provides that no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system or health insurance."
Crowe's proposed Senate Bill (download .pdf file) begins as follows:
HEALTH CARE. Prohibits state or local governmental coercion of any Louisiana employer, health care provider, or individual to compel participation in any health care system or health insurance plan.
Crowe insists that Obamacare violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and "is therefore unconstitutional." He also feels that the president's plans violates the 10th Amendment among others.
...Senator Crowe is part of an increasing push by state lawmakers to affirm state sovereignty and Tenth Amendment rights, laws that will likely come before the U.S. Supreme court in short order once Obamacare is passed in D.C. According to Michael Boldin's Tenth Amendment Center some 25 states have introduced state sovereignty resolutions or bills that would nullify federal laws that the state legislature feels violates their laws and those of the U.S. Constitution.
Er, not a small number, eh Kathy?
I only got through multivariate calculus in college, but by my calculations...
Michelle has more news (via Washington Times):
Lawmakers in 30 states are pressing for constitutional amendments to exempt individuals from the requirement to purchase health care, a pivotal piece of the legislation under debate in Congress.
In Colorado, organizers of a proposed ballot measure filed language with the state elections office Friday. They would like the state legislature to place the amendment on the ballot, but given that both houses are controlled by Democrats, that’s unlikely.
“I want Colorado to become a sanctuary state for good health care,” said Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, who is leading the ballot effort. “People are angry, and rightfully so. If the legislature’s not going to step up and do something, then we’re going to have to.”
…Nineteen states have filed or pre-filed legislation using the organization’s legislative language, known as the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, said Christie Herrera, ALEC’s director of health and human services task force. Ten others have announced their intent to introduce similar bills this session.
“It’s all about preserving the right of people to choose health care for themselves,” said Ms. Herrera.
Here's the deal with these so called "Progressives" - their ideology, in order to be successful, demands that power be centralized into as small a sphere of elites and rule makers as possible. Gather that power from the towns to the State. Take that power from the States and deposit it into the Federal Govt. Consolidate the power from the three branches into one (preferably the Executive branch and its immense bureaucracy). Much easier, from one central location, to decide how people will live their lives for the betterment of society!
Which means as Government gets larger, our ability to make choices for ourselves ("the right of people to choose health care for themselves") in any area is diminished. Trust me, the definition of freedom for most of us differs widely from what Progressives believe it should be (go ahead - ask them! Keep after them to REALLY define their terms - you will be astonished!).
Now ask yourself, why are people like Kathy so dead set against the usage of the 10th Amendment? Yup, you got it - it keeps the power locally - frustrating the TAR out of these folks!
The Founders, the geniuses that they were, understood this well and set up our Constitution so that the power resides as local as possible on purpose. Why? To keep the consolidation of power (that the Progressives want) from happening.
Thus, the take-away is that Just because the former Democrat Chair might say something might be true doesn't make it really so.
She has her reasons - but ask yourself: do they really match up with the intent of the Constitution?
Naw, I don't think so either.
Comments
Posted by: MaineFisherman | January 21, 2010 8:06 PM
So 25 states have introduced resolutions or bills on nullification, eh? Question: How many have passed such bills? How many have survived court challenge?
The doctrine of nullification _is_ a fringe thing. The Supreme Court addressed several attempts at nullification in the years before the Civil War. In all cases the decision was that the federal government is dominant, as stated in the Supremacy Clause.
I agree that Congress routinely exceeds its authority under the enumerated powers, but state nullification laws are not a practical countermeasure.
Posted by: wolfwalker | January 21, 2010 11:38 PM