What Would Jefferson Do? Nullify Now!
With its recent passage, Obamacare has quickly become to the Right what the Iraq war was to the Left-a disastrous and costly mistake heralding unprecedented government action, expansion and intrusion. Conservatives consider forcing Americans to purchase health insurance every bit as unconstitutional as liberals once considered the PATRIOT Act, and needless to say, anytime massive, sweeping government action occurs, those who protest the loudest are who Washington leaders ignore the most.
But a number of states are refusing to be ignored. In fact, they’re refusing, period.
[Ed. note ~ In Constitutional support of Mr. Hunter’s article, I submit the following …..
“Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear `formalistic’ in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era’s perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” — U.S. Supreme Court, 1992, New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.” — U.S. Supreme Court, 1997, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935]
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 