Harry Reid slips in a bombshell for Obamacare foes

The American Thinker

Dec. 22, 2009

Rick Moran
What did we ever do to deserve Harry Reid?

When the “manager’s amendment” was passed in the dead of night, I pointed out that the wonks had yet to give it a good going over to discern what other surprises might lurk in the convoluted language used to obscure so much in the bill.

I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that the wonks have not disappointed us.

Buried in the amendment is a bombshell; there will be no way to amend parts of Obamacare. Apparently, Reid wants to make this bill something like a royal decree where no one can change what has already been wrought.

The Weekly Standard blog has the story:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill–and it’s supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.”

and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

Get that? No repeal, no amendments, no nothing. That part of Obamacare is as set in stone as the idea that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is unalterable – which, of course, means the entire bill is off limits.

The goal is to guard against the possibility that the GOP may win back the House and Senate some day and may wish to repeal or drastically alter Obamacare. In the dead of night, Harry Reid has turned the United States from a constitutional republic into a banana republic monarchy.

Every state should pass this. Let Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Soros, Rockefeller and Co pay for the Obamacare out of their big pockets.

The Betrayal



Contact: State Rep. Mike Ritze

Capitol: (405) 557-7338

Ritze to File ObamaCare “Opt Out” Legislation

OKLAHOMA CITY – State Rep. Mike Ritze today said the voters of Oklahoma should have the opportunity to preserve their health care coverage even if Congress enacts sweeping changes at the federal level.

To provide that opportunity, he will file legislation next year allowing a vote of the people to opt out of the proposed federal system.

“Polling shows the overwhelming majority of Americans are satisfied with their health care coverage and do not want it taken away,” said Ritze, a Broken Arrow Republican who is also a board-certified family practice physician and surgeon. “Many of the proposals under consideration in Congress are likely to result in reduced access to a family doctor, rationing of services, or even outright denial of care if a bureaucrat decides it is not a ‘best practice.’ My legislation would give the voters the ability to protect and preserve their existing health care coverage.”

Modeled on an Arizona proposal, Ritze’s legislation would place language on the ballot to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to declare what types of health care systems could lawfully exist in the state.

The proposed constitutional amendment would

  • Prohibit any law or rule from directly or indirectly compelling any person or employer to participate in any health care system;
  • Allow any person or employer to pay directly for lawful health care services without paying any penalties or fines;
  • Permit a health care provider to provide directly purchased lawful health services without paying any penalties or fines; and
  • Stipulate that subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of private health insurance will not be prohibited.

The amendment would not change what health care services a provider is required to perform or what health care services are permitted by law.

“This is an issue that could have serious consequences for all citizens and it is only right to allow voters a direct role in the outcome of this debate,” Ritze said.

No. 3 Kentucky beats Drexel to reach 2,000 wins

  • Yahoo Sports
  • Dec. 22,2009

LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP)—John Calipari spent weeks downplaying Kentucky’s pursuit of 2,000 wins, saying his team needed to be focused on getting better, not making history.

Moments after the third-ranked Wildcats routed Drexel 88-44 to become the first NCAA team to reach 2,000 victories, Calipari admitted it’s pretty good when you can do both.

“We weren’t a part of many of those 2,000 wins (but) we had a job to do and that was drag us across the line before that other blue team got there,” Calipari said, referring to North Carolina as he stood on the confetti-strewn floor at Rupp Arena. “This is a special moment for this program and this state.”

The future looks pretty bright, too.

DeMarcus Cousins and Patrick Patterson scored 18 points apiece as Kentucky (12-0) roared into history with easily its most dominant performance of the season. Superstar freshman John Wall had 16 points and seven assists.

Kentucky improved to 2,000-635-1 in 107 seasons, just ahead of North Carolina’s 1,992 victories. Kansas is third with 1,980.

“From the beginning to the end, getting to 2,000 wins proves that Kentucky has been the strongest college basketball program,” former Kentucky star Dan Issel said.

The Wildcats entered the record books in style. Cousins and Wall took control early and Kentucky pulled away with the kind of dazzling play that should give it a pretty good head start over the Tar Heels on the race to 3,000.

The Wildcats shot 53 percent, outrebounded the Dragons 45-22 and could have won even more emphatically if Calipari hadn’t started substituting liberally with about seven minutes left.

“That’s as good as we’ve played together,” Calipari said. “We hit a couple of shots early and kept going.”

Samme Givens led Drexel (6-6) with 11 points, but the Dragons shot just 31 percent from the field and spent most of the game as invited guests to Kentucky’s celebration.

It was a party more than 106 years in the making.

The first win was an 11-10 squeaker over the Lexington YMCA on Feb. 18, 1903.

The program needed 66 years to reach 1,000 victories. Students celebrated the milestone with cake alongside legendary coach Adolph Rupp at Memorial Coliseum in 1969.

This party was a little bigger.

Streamers showered the court moments after the final buzzer while players donned black T-shirts commemorating the occasion.

“I saw stuff flying, we were just trying to enjoy ourselves,” forward Josh Harrellson said. “The crowd was going wild. They kept getting louder and louder.”

Maybe it was out of relief more than anything.

Though the Wildcats needed just 40 years to go from 1,000 to 2,000—an average of 25 wins a year—getting to 2,000 first wasn’t exactly a sure thing.

Though the last four decades have included three national titles and seven Final Four appearances, it also has featured a couple of ugly episodes. Kentucky narrowly avoided the death penalty following a recruiting scandal involving former coach Eddie Sutton in the late 1980s.

Rick Pitino revived the program during the 1990s, and for the last few years Kentucky’s march toward becoming the first school to 2,000 seemed inevitable.

But the lead over North Carolina has eroded over the last few years, particularly during Billy Gillispie’s tumultuous tenure. The Tar Heels shaved 30 games off Kentucky’s lead in the last two seasons and began the year just four games back.

Suddenly the marathon had turned into a sprint.

Calipari admitted the math was difficult. He wasn’t sure his talented but largely inexperienced Wildcats could get to 2,000 before the Tar Heels.

Wall and company did their best to ease his mind.

Before a crowd that included Gov. Steve Beshear, former coach Joe B. Hall and program luminaries like Kenny Walker and Jamal Mashburn, Kentucky played with an urgency more befitting late-March.

Kentucky needed less than four minutes to build a double-digit lead behind the kind of intensity that was lacking in a ho-hum win over Austin Peay on Saturday.

“We can’t play that bad against these guys,” Drexel coach Bruiser Flint said. “We were awful.”

Wall did a little bit of everything, finding Cousins for open baskets early as the Wildcats raced to a quick 15-3 lead, then showing his breathtaking ability in the open court as Kentucky pulled away.

He scored the last six points of the half, all on layups, all with a relatively high degree of difficulty, including one in which he wrapped the ball behind his back from his left hand to his right hand at full speed before putting it in off the glass.

The ebullient guard pointed toward the stands behind the basket after the ball splashed through the net, and the party was on.

The Wildcats led 56-20 at the break. When Patterson opened the second half with a 3-pointer, the crowd started holding up signs like “UK2K” and counting the minutes until the program’s spot in the history books was secure.

“We just wanted to be the ones to finish it off,” forward Ramon Harris said. “There are a lot of guys and coaches that were a part of this. We just happened to be the ones celebrating.”

Congrats, Democrats. You own Obamacare

The Washington Examiner
December 22, 2009

It took hundreds of millions of dollars in bribe money to win over Sens. Mary Landrieu, of Louisiana, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, and Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, (plus even more millions for a senator whose identity cannot be determined thanks to the obtuse language of the bill). By hook or by crook, Obamacare’s Senate backers got their magic 60 votes. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, his 57 Democratic colleagues; and both Senate independents own Obamacare. Their votes moved Obamacare past its biggest legislative hurdle yet in a tally taken in the dead of a very cold Sunday night on a massive bill none of them actually read in its entirety.

These 60 senators have joined in what surely ranks among the most breathtakingly arrogant spasms of anti-democratic hubris in American legislative history. By every credible measure of public opinion, opposition to Obamacare has grown for months as people learned more about it. Fully 61 percent of those responding to CNN’s most recent survey turned thumbs down on Obamacare. And still these 60 senators opted to thumb their noses at the majority.

Just how bad is Obamacare? Here are some of the proposal’s most important flaws, as described by one of the proposal’s most passionate critics:

  • It forces you to pay up to 8 percent of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
  • If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2 percent of your annual income to the Internal Revenue Service.
  • After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.
  • Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
  • It allows insurance companies to charge older people 300 percent more than other customers.
  • The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, you family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Care to guess the name of the Obamacare critic who pointed out these and many more flaws in the bill? Try Jane Hamsher of the very liberal blog, Fire Dog Lake, who called Obamacare “a con job.” Clearly, opposition to Obamacare has grown to span the political spectrum. Yet these 60 senators couldn’t care less. May the day come soon when all of them have to explain their disdain for their constituents

Obama Health Care Reform and the Constitution

Tips to J.C.

Suite 101

David J. Shestokas

Washington assumes that Congress has the authority to directly regulate the doctor patient relationship. Is there validity to that assumption?

Often Congress passes legislation without including statements in the law of the constitutional authority it has acted under. When this happens the courts must sort out the authority under which a given law was passed. The oath of office taken by each Representative and Senator requires that each support and defend the Constitution bearing true faith to the document. Consideration of this oath would include an obligation to consider the constitutionality of laws being passed. This obligation applies to President Obama’s pending health care reform.

Congressional Oath of Office to Support and Defend the Constitution

Article VI of the Constitution requires all federal officials to take an oath of office. Since 1884, the Congressional Oath of Office taken by all Senators and Congressman has been:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

This oath by its own terms requires members of Congress to act in accordance with the Constitution in the conduct of their offices. When there is a statement of constitutional purpose in legislation the courts are given significant direction in interpreting the law and its validity.

Social Security Considered by Court After Program Was Entrenched

By the time litigation regarding Social Security reached the Supreme Court there had been collected $150,000,000 in payroll taxes, a huge bureaucracy was in place and some claimants were all ready getting benefits. The Court was faced with a fait accompli and came up with a convoluted opinion in Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) to uphold a law which would have been a nightmare to dismantle.

// <![CDATA[//

Ads by Google

What’s Wrong with America
We’re Facing 3 Major Problems That Could Lead to Disaster. A Must Read
Pocket $44,000+ in HITECH
Sign up for our free EMR and keep all your stimulus incentives.

// <![CDATA[//

This historical situation applies to the current health care debate as Congress attempts to impose its will on one-seventh of the American economy. There are significant constitutional considerations involved in the debates regarding health care. Current proposals do not include statements of constitutional authority.

Doctor Patient Relationship Subject to Constitutional Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court has been very protective of the doctor/patient relationship and finding that the federal government has little if any business being involved in that process.

In the 1925 case of Linder v. United States, a doctor proscribed morphine for a patient allegedly in violation of federal law. The doctor was prosecuted and found guilty in overturning his conviction the Court said: “Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government.

More recently the right to privacy in medical decisions found in the 9th and 10th Amendments has become important to the Court and was the principal factor in Roe v. Wade. In 2003, in rejecting an appeal of Conant v. Walters, the Court refused to change a lower court decision that allowed doctors to be involved with their patients regarding medical marijuana. In 2005 the Court upheld Oregon’s assisted suicide law in Gonzales v. Oregon.

Individual Mandates

A principle element of President Obama’s health care reform proposals includes something called individual mandates. These mandates would essentially require someone to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties. Government would be involved in some of the most private decisions individual Americans make.

Consider the Constitution Before Passing Laws

The congressional oath of office requires support of and true faith to the Constitution. Fulfillment of that oath includes passing constitutional legislation. Inclusion of a statement of constitutional purpose and authority gives the courts significant direction in future rulings
Read more at Suite101: Obama Health Care Reform and the Constitution: Can Congress Regulate Health Care Choices? | Suite101.com http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_reform_and_the_constitution#ixzz0aOWjK1U1

Senate and Obama ignore the Constitution to Socialize Healthcare

The Betrayal

Copyright © 2009 Impeach Obama Campaign

Dr. (Mengele) ObamaIn an outrageous example of the abuse of near dictatorial power, the leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, forced a vote on nationalized health care. With total disregard for the will of the people and turning a blind eye to the United States Constitution, Reid sought passage for this bill by corrupting the legislative system.

“This process is not legislation. This process is corruption,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, referring to the last-minute blitz of dirty deal making that enabled Obama to lock in the 60 votes needed to pass the bill.

[

We Have Come Full Circle

The Post & E-Mail

by KJ Kaufman

The Battle of Charlestown (c/o The National Archives).

(Dec. 21, 2009)  —  Many of us were taught that the American fight for Independence began as a fight of no taxation without representation as the Colonists were being taxed by King George III when the Colonists had no representation in British Parliament.  Although this characterization is certainly true, the ultimate decision to declare independence was much more than that.  The colonists were developing a nation.  Today, we would think of them as modern day entrepreneurs.  At every turn they were being taxed so as to make their exports less attractive and imports exorbitantly expensive.  Their commerce was obstructed and they were sent goods of lesser quality.  American Independence truly began as a culmination of infringements of the colonists’ God given rights being usurped by a mad man in England and also by the British Parliament.  I use the term mad man, not in hyperbole, but in earnest as King George III suffered throughout his life from mental illness.

As many of you know, Tea was taxed.  In Boston, Patriots dumped tea (circa 1773) into the harbor in protest which sparked elevated tensions and resulted in the passage of the “Intolerable Acts” by the British Parliament, but there was trouble in Boston and elsewhere long before the dumping of tea.  The Revolution began as the result of numerous punitive actions against American commerce as well as taxation.  The Revolution began as the result of:

  • English merchants enjoying a monopoly on raw materials and requiring importation of manufactured goods from Great Britain.
  • Discriminatory trade practices where American exports were devalued and British imports were so highly valued that there was a never ending debt cycle for the American farmer and merchant.
  • In 1765, seeking to alleviate their war debts, the British Parliament levied a Stamp Act tax which required all legal documents, newspapers and many other articles to have a Stamp placed upon them.  The colonists had no representation in the British Parliament and maintained responsibility for levying their own taxes that they sent to the British Crown.  This was the first tax against the colonists imposed by a government body in which they had no representation.  The Stamp Act Tax was repealed by the British Parliament just one year after it had gone into effect.
  • Even though the British Parliament had repealed the Stamp Act, during the same session, they asserted their supposed right to tax the colonists.
  • The colonists retaliated by general agreement to not purchase English goods that had taxes attached.
  • In Boston, the colonists were unruly, and the King sent British troops to occupy the city.  By 1760, the occupation had so added to the tensions that a snowball fight between young boys in Boston against British soldiers culminated in the “Boston Massacre” where gathering Bostonians were gunned down by British soldiers.  Five Americans were killed while many others were wounded.
  • Tensions remained in Boston for the next three years.  Even though the British Parliament repealed the Townshend Act which was the tax on tea, the British Parliament in response to the dumping of tea in the Boston harbor, passed the “Intolerable Acts” with its most restrictive measure being the closure of the port of Boston resulting in Massachusetts being under what can only be described as British martial law.
  • By May of 1774 a grassroots movement began in the colonies against tyrannical rule.  Many meetings throughout the colonies sprung up to reassert individual rights.
  • In the summer of 1774, the “Fairfax Resolutions” were drawn up and stand today as one of the first influential documents regarding American political thought.  The Fairfax Resolutions reiterated the limited powers of Parliament against the colonists and highlighted the rights of free men.
  • The colonists began their Congresses later that year in 1774 holding the First Continental Congress in September of 1774.[i]

I have highlighted above the many events of the 1760’s and 1770’s to show the parallels to modern day America.  The above illuminates egregious regulations of commerce, taxation and usurpation of individual rights.  In American modern times, can the last century as well as the events thus far into the new millennium be characterized in different terms other than parallel to those described above?  Is history repeating itself a mere two and a half centuries later?

The United States government under liberal and progressive plans has resulted in the promotion of the collective against the individual.  There can be nothing more un-American than to subvert the rights and liberties of the individual in advancement of the collective.  There was a time in America where we understood that to promote a Marxist ideology, an ideology that failed miserably during the 20th Century resulting in the death of tens of millions of human beings, was simply un-American.  Today, our Democratic leaders readily accept this ideology in direct contrast to our founding and in direct violation of our Constitution.  Let me share with you just a few statements from our Democratic Senators, uttered on the Senate floor in yesterday’s health care debate soliloquies.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) – Quoting Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Hofstetter, Senator Whitehouse charged:  “a political environment in which the rational pursuit of our well being and safety would become impossible…Tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds, broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets, strange fruit has hung from southern trees…”

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) – “And that’s really what we are trying to achieve here is to create that availability of a right.  I don’t know of anyone that disagrees with the statement that health care in America ought to be a right…”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) – “We are talking about a revolution in primary care here…Doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical professionals who agree to work in areas where there are limited medical services get help paying off their school loans.”

I led off with Senator Whitehouse’s comments because they are so offensive, they ought to be rendered moot just on their face, but unfortunately Senator Whitehouse’s attempt to use another’s words to push the deceit that if you are against health care reform with respect to this particular bill, then you are rolling fellow citizens to the guillotine or are a racist is outrageous and repulsive, utterly offensive, arrogant and self-serving.  Senator Whitehouse, in our history, it has been those with opinions such as yours, that the individual and individual rights can be subverted by his fellow man through the ways and means of government, who are first to throw the rope over the branch of the tree of tyranny.  You are a despicable excuse for a leader, and you are in direct violation of our Constitutional protections.  Consider yourself on notice.  Your tyranny will not prevail in a country of free persons.

Ascertained from the remaining quotes, it is duly noted that the Democratic Party continues to push the philosophical position and moral imperative that health care is a right.  Nothing could be further from philosophical and moral fact.  Health care is not a right as rights cannot be obtained through the subversion of another’s rights.  Health care is not a right nor is it a privilege, rather, it is a good and service for which will all strive to procure.  We all have a right to live and pursue our lives.  In that pursuit, we may choose to take care of ourselves and avail ourselves of health care.  However, nowhere contained within our rights can we require another to provide for our own care.  We can readily accept the generosity freely given by our fellow men and women, but we cannot force them to make a contribution to ourselves.

Our Declaration of Independence assured us of our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Our Constitution provided for us a bill of rights.  Neither document grants health care as a right, and there is absolutely no government empowerment to legislate such.  There is no philosophical moral imperative to the right of health care.  There is a moral imperative to resist at every turn the encroachment on another’s rights.

The Democratic Party is simply lost.  They no longer understand the American Founding nor the ideals and guarantees of our history.  To willingly, unlawfully and without authority expand the powers of government so that they resemble a Politburo more than our own Constitutional Republic was once considered tyrannical rule in this Country.  No more, today it is simply standard operating procedure for the Democratic Party.

Our commerce has been subjected to regulation where no enumerated power can be found for such encroachment into our free market system.  Our citizenry has been taxed in ways and by means that have no Constitutional founding and are in direct violation of our rights to our own property.  Our private businesses have been usurped through government infusions of money in total contradiction to its monetary powers contained in our Constitution.  We have been subjected to legislative act after legislative act in direct violation of everything we once believed and knew to be the fact of our inheritance.

As you can see from the events quoted at the beginning of this article, there comes a time in a man’s or a woman’s heart where he or she can take no more.  It is with this understanding that we know the time draws near when the masses will rise up to reassert their God given rights.  A free people will never willingly be subjected to tyranny.  It is only a matter of time before the citizens of these United States rise up as their forefathers did and declare that they have had enough.  Whether this revolution results in violence or continues through peaceful protest and redress remains to be seen.  What is certain is that the American People have only just begun to fight.

Attention U.S Senators

Dear Senators:

You have just met to vote on your parties  Illegal and Unconstitutional Health Care Reform Act on Monday at 1 am.

I am putting you on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF INSTRUCTION that you do not have any LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL authority to vote yes on this issue. Therefore, your vote will be in VIOLATION of your OATH OF OFFICE and subject to removal.

Congress lacks the constitutional authority to regulate and control the practice of medicine in the jurisdiction of the States.

See Linder v. United States (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com…), 268 U.S. 5, 18, 45 S.Ct. 446 (1925) (“Obviously, direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government”);

Lambert v. Yellowly (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com…), 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926) (“It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”)

Oregon v. Ashcroff (openjurist.org…), 368 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The principle that state governments bear the primary responsibility for evaluating physician assisted suicide follows from our concept of federalism, which requires that state lawmakers, not the federal government, are ‘the primary regulators of professional [medical] conduct.’ Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 639 (9th Cir. 2002);

Barsky v. Bd. of Regents (supreme.justia.com…), 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct 650, 98 L.ED. 829 (1954) (‘It is elemental that a state has broad power to establish and enforce standards of conduct within its broders relative to the health of everyone there. It is a vital part of a state’s police power.’) The Attorney General ‘may not…regulate [the doctor-patient] relationship to advance federal policy.’ Conant, 309 F3d at 647 (Kozinski, J., concurring).”)

And certain features of this proposed law will certainly be unconstitutional; see:

United States v. Constantine (supreme.justia.com…), 296, U.S. 287, 56 S.Ct. 223 (1935) “We think the suggestion has never been made — certainly never entertained by this Court — that the United States may impose cumulativepenalties above and beyond those specified by state law for infractions of the state’s criminal code by its own citizens. The affirmative of such a proposition would obliterate the distinction between the delegated powers of the federal government and those reserved to the states and to their citizens. The implications from a decision sustaining such an imposition would be startling. The concession of such a power would open the door to unlimited regulation of matters of state concern by federal authority. The regulation of the conduct of its own citizens belongs to the state, not to the United States. The right to impose sanctions for violations of the state’s laws inheres in the body of its citizens speaking through their representatives. So far as the reservations of the Tenth Amendment were qualified by the adoption of the Eighteenth, the qualification has been abolished. (emphases added)


Article. IV.

Section. 3.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

For Health Freedom, John C. Hammell, President International Advocates for Health Freedom 556 Boundary Bay Road Point Roberts, WA 98281-8702 USA www.iahf.com… jham@iahf.com 800-333-2553 N.America 360-945-0352 World

Kentucky Resolutions Redux

The Tenth Amendment Center

“A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION claiming sovereignty over powers not granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution; serving notice to the federal government to cease mandates beyond its authority; and stating Kentucky’s position that federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of loss of federal funding should be prohibited or repealed.”

For those history buffs out there, Kentucky was at the forefront in asserting the principles of State Sovereignty in the early days of the Republic.   The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 took what some consider to be the strongest position on this issue in our history.

Here’s an excerpt:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Read the rest of the Kentucky Resolutions here

Here’s the remainder of the modern-day Kentucky Resolution:

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the state; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” and the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Senate concurring therein:

Section 1.   The Commonwealth of Kentucky hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

Section 2.   This Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

Section 3.   It is the position of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

Section 4.   The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall distribute a copy of this Resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and to each member of Kentucky’s congressional delegation.