Capitalism Institute: Every effort to navigate the proper channels to repeal Obamacare have been thus far blocked by Democrats (and even some big government Republicans), despitepracticallyeveryone hating the oppressive legislation.
Naturally, states are considering other means by which to stop this economic disaster before it gets even worse.
South Carolina and Georgia have already jumped on board with a state-level model developed by the Tenth Amendment Center to effectively nullify Obamacare in their states. The template is even being applied outlaw the NSA from operating within Arizona.
Using this model to combat Obamacare, South Carolina and Georgia are prepared to “nullify” Obamacare by withholding the state’s personnel and resources the law depends on. It would be illegal for the state’s resources to contribute towards the law’s implementation. This is essentially how it works:
Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, passed by both houses and signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.
Most of the “naysayers” will tell you that these nullification efforts are “illegal” because of the supremacy clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
However, those at the Tenth Amendment Center disagree:
The major argument used by those that oppose Nullification is the Constitution’s supremacy clause. But in fact, the arguments for the supremacy clause ARE the arguments for nullification.
They continue:
The major architects of the Constitution, and those that led the fight for its adoption, laid down what the supremacy clause meant during the ratifying conventions. By doing so, they defended state sovereignty, and set the stage for the negation of unconstitutional actions.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial and political analyst, recently confirmed that these efforts are, in fact, legal — and effective:
[I]t will gut Obamacare because the federal government does not have the resources or the wherewithal […] to go into each of the individual states.
It was Alexander Hamilton who said, “but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.”
The TAC cites several other historic quotes from the New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina ratifying conventions and the Federalist Papers demonstrating that the supremacy clause is — and was intended to be — a platform upon which we could hold an overbearing federal government “in check”:
[The Founders] established the means for the states to defend themselves and their citizens from a general government that exceeding its authority and that power is NULLIFICATION.
The nullification of overbearing, unconstitutional federal laws is essential to preserving our liberty. The Founders were certainly not ignorant of the consequences of letting a federal government run amok; thus, they crafted in our Constitution a fail-safe.
When Congress seems more interested in propelling us head-first into tyranny rather than protecting us from it, we have to take matters into our own hands.
The nullification efforts in South Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona are just the beginning.
You can help fight this country’s descent into despotism by sharing this article with your legislators, friends, family, and colleagues. Liberty is at risk with every passing generation. It is time to take action.
The Daily Caller: The Obama administration is waiving the deadline for states to establish a health insurance exchange in accordance with Obamacare, reports The New York Times. But it should not be taken as a sign of deference to the states, or a willingness to be flexible; it should be taken as a sign of desperation.
The announcement is in fact an attempt by the administration to shore up the health care law’s inherent weaknesses and to cajole states into enacting a federal scheme. Contrary to what the feds now claim, the latest and most glaring weakness of Obamacare is that it was crafted to depend on states to establish health insurance exchanges. These exchanges are meant to be the vehicles for the distribution of tax credits and subsidies to buy qualified health insurance plans.
If a state refuses to set up an exchange, and so far 25 have refused,the federal government must step in and create one. However, the law does not authorize tax credits and subsidies to flow through federally created exchanges, only those created by states. An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule issued in May 2012 attempted to fix this problem — initially dismissed as a “drafting error” — by extending credits and subsidies to federal exchanges and so-called “partnership exchanges,” which a number of states have indicated they will adopt.
But the law’s plain meaning, and Congress’ intent, cannot be swept aside by a rule issued by the IRS. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is challenging the IRS in federal court over the rule and the case will likely end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. It has huge implications. If federal exchanges cannot facilitate tax credits and subsidies, they also cannot be used to impose penalties on employers that fail to comply with the law’s “employer mandate” — a fine of $2,000 per employee per year. States that refuse to set up an exchange could therefore shield thousands of their residents and small businesses from onerous federal taxes and penalties.
The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon has made this argument forcefully and in great detail, and it seems to be gaining ground. Cannon, along with Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, have authored what will likely be the definitive argument against the legality of the IRS rule in a forthcoming Health Matrix article.
They argue that once it became clear that a significant number of states were not going to set up exchanges, the IRS sought to fix the problem by regulatory decree. However, by stipulating that tax credits and subsidies would be available only through state-created exchanges, Congress sought to create an incentive for states to set up their own exchanges — because it could not simply order states to create them without overstepping constitutional boundaries. It seems that it did not occur to Obamacare’s authors that many states would simply refuse, or that offering tax credits and subsidies would not be sufficient inducement for them to comply. It was a gross miscalculation, and could mean the undoing of Obamacare.
Seen in this light, this week’s announcement by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius looks more like a plea to recalcitrant states to cooperate and set up exchanges so the feds won’t have to. Sebelius was supposed to determine by January 1 whether states were prepared to run an exchange, but she knew as far back as Nov. 15 that Texas, at least, would not establish one.
Waiving the deadline isn’t a deferential gesture by HHS to the states; it is the latest attempt by the federal government to deputize states into implementing federal policy, and a desperate attempt at that.
Texas and other states should remain steadfast in their resolve not to become tools for Washington, D.C. If the feds want Obamacare exchanges, let them set up those exchanges themselves. Americans would be much better off with weak federal exchanges than they would with the state-based exchanges Congress first envisioned in the law.
Since 1982, NVIC’s mission has been to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and we have defended without compromise the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk-taking, which is a human right
NVIC is giving their 2012 Health Liberty Award to the independent-thinking, high spirited citizens of Vermont, who in January successfully defended their informed consent rights by intelligently and responsibly participating in the democratic process, defeating Vermont Senate bill S199, which would have eliminated the philosophical exemption to vaccination
The battle to protect vaccine freedom of choice continues. In California, Assemblyman Richard Pan, M.D. has introduced a bill to impose restrictions on the personal belief exemption to vaccination, which was passed by the Assembly and is rapidly moving through the Senate. The California bill (AB2109) will force parents, who are filing a personal belief exemption for children to attend school, to pay a medical doctor or other designated medical practitioner
This month, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) joins with our Health Liberty partners to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the founding of the Health Liberty Coalition by Mercola.com.
For many years, NVIC and the non-profit Consumers for Dental Choice, Organic Consumers Association (OCA), Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and Institute for Responsible Technology have each worked to protect human health through public education and informed choice advocacy.i
At the heart of Health Liberty is respect for the informed consent and precautionary principles, which together serve as an ethical foundation for protecting consumer rights and ensuring product safety.
Whether it is the freedom to eat food that has not been genetically modified, drink water without fluoride in it, make voluntary vaccine choices, have access to affordable mercury free dental amalgams, or exercise the right to choose safer medical tests and options for healing and staying well, the partners of the Health Liberty coalition founded by Mercola.com are committed to protecting the consumer's right to know and freedom to choose.
Defending Informed Consent to Vaccination
Since 1982, NVIC's mission has been to prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through public education and we have defended without compromise the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk-taking, which is a human right.ii
The consumer's right to know and freedom to make voluntary vaccine choices serves as a vital counterweight to lack of transparency and unchecked profit-making by pharmaceutical corporations shielded from civil liability for selling a growing list of vaccines that medical doctors and government officials insist every American should be legally required to buy and use.
This year, we are celebrating an awakening among Americans, who are rediscovering the power they individually have to make a difference by participating in the democratic process. That power was exercised in Vermont this year, when parents and enlightened health care professionals joined together to face down wealthy Pharma-funded medical trade lobbyists and influential state public health employees trying to take away the philosophical exemption to vaccination.
Health Liberty Award Goes to Citizens of Vermont
That is why NVIC is giving our 2012 Health Liberty Award to the independent-thinking, high spirited citizens of Vermont, who quickly organized this past January and successfully defended their informed consent rights by intelligently and responsibly participating in the democratic process.
For the past two years, the state of Vermont has been ranked as the number one "healthiest" state.iii Only 360 school children in Vermont had philosophical exemptions on file during the 2010-2011 school year,iv and we don't know how many parents filed a philosophical exemption because they could not find a pediatrician to write a medical exemption for their child. v Most pediatricians refuse to write medical exemptions because, in 2012, almost no vaccine reaction symptom or medical condition qualifies as an official reason to exempt a child medically. vi,vii,
But, even though only 360 school children in Vermont were exempted from vaccination for philosophical belief reasons, that did not stop the Pharma/Medical Trade lobby from attacking the legal right for Vermonters to obtain a non-medical exemption to vaccination for their children. Clearly, they thought it would be easy to quickly ram anti-informed consent legislation through the Vermont legislature.
What they didn't count on was outraged Vermonters defending their right to know and freedom to choose.viii The legislative attack on the philosophical exemption to vaccination in Vermont generated heated political debate, national publicity and, in the end, was not only defeated but gave birth to a new public consciousness about what it takes to defend health liberty. As one of the bill's primary sponsors admitted: "I never thought this would turn into the mess it turned into."
Powerful Doctors Push Eliminating Personal Belief Exemption
The bill to eliminate the philosophical exemption to vaccination in Vermont (S199) was introduced on Jan. 3, 2012 in the state Senateix by Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland), who is VT chair of the Pharma-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).x It was introduced in the state House by Representative George Till, M.D. (D-Chittenden), at the request of Harry Chen, M.D., Vermont's Health Commissioner. Dr. Chen was a Vermont state representative and former chair of the Vermont House Health Care Committee for four years and has publicly downplayed vaccine risks.xi
The bill was supported by the VT Dept. of Health and many medical trade associations and special interest groups, including those that receive money from pharmaceutical corporations selling vaccines in the U.S., such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), March of Dimes, Every Child by Two and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
After S199 was quickly rammed through the Senate without a public hearing and passed with a nearly unanimous 25-4 vote, Vermont parents quickly organized and founded the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice.xii The new Coalition's co-founder, Jennifer Stella, volunteered to be NVIC's Vermont state director and work with Dawn Richardson, NVIC's Director of Advocacy, who led a seven-year effort to obtain conscientious belief exemption to vaccination in Texas in 2003 and manages the online NVIC Advocacy Portal to educate citizens about how to become effective vaccine choice advocates."
By the end of February, the parents of seven-year old Kaylynne Matten, who died in Vermont after a routine flu shot in December 2011, began speaking out about the need to keep the philosophical exemption intact.
To learn more, please watch the following videoxiii, which includes an interview with Kaylynne's parents.
By March 15, the newly formed Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice held a public demonstration in Montpelier, the state Capitol.xiv The Vermont Coalition founders created a website and Facebook page and secured 1500 signatures on a petition opposing the bill.
After Vermont parents protested that the VT Senate had held no public hearings on the bill, House hearings were held March 21 evening meeting was packed with Vermont families and health professionals opposing the bill.xv
Bill Rammed Through in the Senate
An amended version of S199 retaining the philosophical exemption was overwhelmingly approved by the full House on April 13.xvi While the amended version kept the philosophical exemption intact, it required parents to review vaccine benefit information and sign a statement every year acknowledging that taking the exemption will pose a risk to the health of their child and society.
On April 30, a specially appointed House and Senate Conference Committee was created. The Committee voted to keep the philosophical exemption unless the statewide vaccination rate drops below 90 percent for pertussis and MMR vaccine and, then, the Health Commissioner would suspend the philosophical exemption for those vaccines. xvii,xviii
The Vermont Coalition for Vaccination Choice and NVIC opposed the compromise. Jennifer Stella commented: "It basically says that only 10 percent of Vermonters get to use that right."
On May 3, behind the scenes modifications to the bill were made that removed the 90 percent vaccination rate cap and kept the philosophical exemption intact. However, the language, which forces parents to sign a statement that they agree that taking the exemption endangers their child and society, remained in the bill.
In addition, a "feasibility study" was added by bill supporters to pave the way for teachers and all school personnel to be required to show proof they are up-to-date on all government recommended vaccines in order to stay employed.
Philosophical Exemption Saved, Bill Signed by Governor
Without public hearings on the amended bill, it passed the House with a nearly unanimous 133-6 vote on May 3. On May 5, the Senate followed suit with a 20-5 vote and the bill was signed by Governor Peter Shumlin on May 16.
It was a victory for Vermont parents, who saved the exemption. Tom McLeod, a key member of the Vermont Coalition for Vaccine Choice, observed that "The most dangerous place in the woods is between a mother bear and her cubs." xix
The philosophical exemption to vaccination was saved because enough citizens in Vermont woke up to the very real threat posed by multi-national corporations, which have no restrictions on the aggressive marketing of liability-free vaccine products they want every American to be legally required to buy and use. Once Vermonters saw the threat, they did not sit back and let their informed consent rights be taken from them. Because they fought for their health liberty, they became an inspiration to all Americans, who want to be free to make informed, voluntary health choices.
Battle for Vaccine Choice Being Waged in Other States
The battle to protect vaccine freedom of choice in Vermont is not over, and it continues in states like West Virginia, Kansas, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and others. In California, a pediatrician legislator, Assemblyman Richard Pan, M.D., introduced a bill in February to impose restrictions on the personal belief exemption to vaccination and it was quickly passed by the Assembly and is rapidly moving through the Senate.
The California bill (AB2109) will force parents, who are filing a personal belief exemption for children to attend school, to pay a medical doctor or other designated medical practitioner (D.O., medical assistant, nurse practitioner or N.D. under the supervision of an M.D.) for an appointment to have the personal belief exemption form signed. Without a medical provider signature, the personal belief exemption form will not be valid and the child will be barred from attending school.
Watch an NVIC public service message about California Assembly bill AB2109.
Operating the oldest and largest vaccine safety and choice information website on the Internet and daily educating 35,000 Fans on Facebook;
Serving as America's vaccine safety watchdog by monitoring and reporting on vaccine science,xvi regulation,xxvii policymaking xxviii,xxixand lawxxx through e-newsletters, press releases, referenced commentariesxxxi,xxxiiand special reports.xxxiii
You can be a vaccine safety and choice advocate today by becoming a user of the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal and participating in the democratic process. Go to www.NVICAdvocacy.org and use the Portal to contact your legislators with the touch of an iPhone screen or click of a computer mouse and make your voice heard.
Be part of the growing, state-based national network of concerned families and health care professionals working with NVIC and Mercola.com to protect vaccine choices in America. If we all fight for the consumer's right to know and freedom to choose, we can win back health liberty in the states, where it has been lost, and protect it in states, like Vermont, where citizens care enough and are brave enough to stand their ground.
Our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.
With the signature of Gov. Rick Perry today, Texas has joined three other states stating their intention to enter into a health care compact.
The compact, which would challenge the authority of the federal government to dictate the terms of the federally and state funded Medicaid program, was part of a wide-ranging health care reform bill, Senate Bill 7, passed by the Texas Legislature in its recently concluded special session.
The law establishes Texas, along with the other three states, as pioneers in an uncharted use of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution which allows states to enter into agreements that, with the approval of Congress, cannot be abridged by the federal government. There are more than 200 state compacts currently in effect, nearly all of them related to commerce.
Article 1, however, does not outline the terms by which Congress might be compelled to agree to a state health care compact. Supporters are hoping to tip the balance in their favor as more states pass compacts laws.
Perry said the compacts language is an important part of a health care reform package the Legislative Budget Board has estimated will save Texas $467 million.
“Texas faces unique challenges when it comes to health care delivery, and Washington’s one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t fit our needs,” Perry said. “SB 7 provides state-based solutions to rising health care costs by providing millions in savings, rewarding innovation and improving the health care of Texans.”
Texas Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, introduced the compacts bill as a separate piece of legislation and fought hard for its passage in the special session after seeing it stall at the end of the regular period.
“Health care spending crowds out funding for our schools, highways and public safety. That's why we need the health care compact,” Kolkhorst said. “Texans need a bigger say in how our health dollars are spent, a government closest to the people governs best."
Leo Linbeck III, a Houston businessman and one of the founders of the national Health Care Compacts Alliance, said Texas has struck a blow for self-governance, giving Texans an opportunity to shape its own health care system.
“Rather than forcing Texans to comply with a one-size-fits-all system designed by federal politicians and Washington D.C. bureaucrats, the health care compact will bring those decisions back to Texas, “ Linbeck said. “Americans want self-governance, especially in health care.”
*** Contact Mark Lisheron at 512-299-2318 or mark@texaswatchdog.org or on Twitter at @marktxwatchdog.
Apparently deciding that the risk of angering his constituents over a failure to act against Obamacare was worse than angering his Attorney General, Wayne Stenehjem, who holds that the state cannot pass laws contradicting federal law, Governor Jack Dalrymple signed SB2309. (click here to read about the health care nullification act in N.D.)
The bill affirms that North Dakotans have the right to buy, or not buy, whatever health insurance they want. This law is statute. A previous bill that would have amended the constitution with similar language was defeated with a gang of 29 House Republicans voting with Democrats at the behest of Stenehjem to kill it.
This bill was discussed on Fox News recently by state nullification proponent Tom Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano. “The new state law, if signed by Dalrymple, says the federal health insurance law can’t interfere with North Dakotans’ decision to buy health insurance or not buy health insurance,” wrote the editorial board of the Minot Daily News though the paper went on to say that the law “won’t make a difference” because state law “can’t override a federal law.”
This, of course, isn’t true. The states are under no obligation to abide by federal laws that are unconstitutional. And since that is the State of North Dakota’s official position on Obamacare in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the law, this law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is appropriate.
Kudos to Dalrymple for having the courage many other political leaders in this state do not.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Recently, Idaho’s Governor Otter signed an order refusing state compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). With this signature, North Dakota is now the first state in the country to pass into law the Health Care Nullification Act.
The Tenth Amendment Center has released the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, which directly nullifies the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on a state level. Click here to learn more about the bill. CLICK HERE to track the Nullification Act in states around the country.
Keep Praying!
Today's hearing of our lawsuit against ObamaCare is making national headlines. Many news organizations are reporting on the great significance of my oral argument and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's presentation that will be heard back-to-back by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.
These lawsuits - one on behalf of private parties and one on behalf of a sovereign state - are the first lawsuits against ObamaCare to reach the appeals court level.
Because the three judges who will hear our case are selected from among the 14 sitting judges in the Fourth Circuit - four of whom are Obama appointees and three of whom are Clinton appointees - preparation for this case has been highly challenging. We cannot know who will be chosen to hear our case tomorrow, so we had to make sure we are very broadly prepared.
How important is our challenge to the constitutionality of ObamaCare? The panel of judges we will face is just one level below the United States Supreme Court. As you may recall, two lower court judges have already declared ObamaCare to be unconstitutional, while certain liberal judges have sided with the so-called healthcare "reform" act.
We are well prepared and calling for continual prayer!
As I wrote on Friday, I'm excitedly anticipating just how powerful the prayers of tens of thousands of Believers will actually be!
I know each of the 76,593 patriotic men and women who signed our Amici Book want our nation to be delivered from the devastation of ObamaCare before it is too late.
Above all, I know God is hearing these prayers and that He Is answering!
I am emphatically asking that you pray for my entire team and me in the remaining hours before I stand before the panel of federal judges to defend the liberties of all Americans against this outrageous law.
Your prayers mean a great deal to me and our Liberty Counsel Litigation Team and they are also crucially important to all Americans who recognize this blatant socialist takeover of our medical industry for exactly what it is!
