Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It!

By Publius Huldah

We are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way.  Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“obamacare”) unconstitutional; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1  and since a democrat-controlled U.S. Senate will not repeal obamacare, we must find another way.

There is another way. Here it is, and it comes from Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence.

Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures

1. Resolved, That The States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the federal government; but that, with the Constitution for the United States, they established a federal government for limited purposes only.  That they delegated to this federal government only limited and enumerated powers; and reserved, each State to itself, all remaining powers, along with the right to their own self-government.

That whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

That to these Principles, each State agreed as a State, and as The Parties to the Constitution.

That the federal government is not a party to the Constitution, but is merely the creature of the Constitution; and as the mere creature, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; since that would have made the creature’s will, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers.  That as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each State has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether the creature has committed infractions, and as to the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of The State of Tennessee acknowledges the Principle that the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

3. Resolved, That in the Constitution of the United States, THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Federation of Sovereign States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce and relations; and domestically the creation of an uniform commercial system:  Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery and road building. That the 10th  Amendment to the Constitution also declares that “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.”

That nowhere in the Constitution of the United States was any power granted to Congress to make laws respecting the medical care of THE PEOPLE; and that nowhere in the Constitution are powers over this matter prohibited to The States.

4. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that all legislative Powers granted by that Constitution are vested in CONGRESS; therefore, Departments within the Executive Branch are forbidden to make any “rules” or “laws” of general application whatsoever.

That administrative rules being promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services, one of the executive Departments of the federal government, to be set forth in Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and which pretend to regulate the medical care of THE PEOPLE throughout the several States; are altogether void, and of no force, as in violation of Art. I, Sec.1, of the federal Constitution.

That as matters pertaining to the “medical care”, “health”, and “human services” of THE PEOPLE are nowhere delegated to the federal government by the federal Constitution; but are among the countless multitudes of matters reserved to The States or THE PEOPLE; the federal Department of Health and Human Services is itself an unlawful Department, and its mere existence an affront to the Constitution; and all of the powers it exercises are usurped powers as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by our Constitution.

That if the pretended “rules” of this spurious federal Department should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that unelected bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of the federal government may force upon The States, THE PEOPLE, the medical profession, and The Churches their own ideas of what others must and must not do in the area of medical care; and may force upon them their own ideas of what medical treatments each person shall be provided or denied.

That this spurious federal Department will further send out swarms of officers to trespass upon hospitals, doctors’ offices, other places of provision of medical care, and premises of religious institutions, to harass providers of medical services, dictate to them as to what specific medical treatments they must provide and are forbidden to provide to their patients.

To this abomination is added the additional affront that the objects of these pretended “rules” are altogether outside the scope of the enumerated powers THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government in our Constitution.

That the Departments within the Executive Branch of the federal government have established a pattern of unlawfully functioning as legislators, when they write “agency rules”; as executives, when they investigate and prosecute violations of “agency rules”; and as judges and juries when they decide whether violations of their “agency rules” have occurred and impose punishment.  Thus the Executive Branch unlawfully functions as legislator, accuser, judge & jury, in violation of the Constitution and of the Principles of Separation of Power and of Checks and Balances.

5. Resolved, That all aspects of the medical care of THE PEOPLE, not being anywhere delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by The Constitution to The States, are reserved to The States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE.  Therefore, power over this matter is reserved solely and exclusively to the respective States and THE PEOPLE, each within its or their own territory.

6. Resolved, That to take from The States all the powers of self-government and to transfer all powers to a general and consolidated national government, in defiance of the Constitution which was ordained and established by THE PEOPLE, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of THE PEOPLE.

Therefore This State is determined to refuse to submit to undelegated powers exercised over them by the federal government; and rejects altogether the notion that the federal government may exercise unlimited powers over them.

That in cases of an abuse of the delegated (enumerated) powers, the members of the federal government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy.

But, where powers are usurped which have not been delegated to the federal government – when the federal government acts outside of, and in defiance of, the federal Constitution by exercising powers not delegated to it by that Constitution; then a nullification of the unlawful act is the rightful remedy.

Thus every State has a natural right – which pre-dates & pre-exists the federal Constitution – to nullify of their own authority all such lawless assumptions of power within the boundaries of their State.  That without this pre-existing natural and original right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whoever in the federal government chooses to exercise tyrannical powers over them.

The States alone are The Parties to the compact; and thus are solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it.  Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch are not parties to the contract; but are merely the creatures of the compact (Federalist No. 33, 5th para).  As mere creatures, they may exercise no powers other than those enumerated powers specifically delegated to them.

7. Resolved, That the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government to the so-called “taxing”, “general welfare”, “interstate commerce”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, to the effect that these clauses bestow unlimited powers on the federal government, goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the federal Constitution. That the true and genuine meaning of those clauses is as follows:

a) The “taxing” and “general welfare” clauses:  Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.1, employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. It is “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; thus, to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” is “an absurdity” (Federalist Paper No. 41, last 4 paras).

The federal Constitution declares that “the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases.  This specification of particulars…excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended…” (Federalist No. 83, 7th para).

b) The “interstate commerce” clause: “Commerce” is the buying and selling of goods – only that and nothing more. Webster’s American Dictionary (1828) says “commerce” is:

“an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals… by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick… inland commerce…is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.”

Federalist No. 22 (4th para), Federalist No. 42 (9th  &10th  paras), Federalist No. 44 (at 2.), and Federalist No. 56  (5th & 6th paras), explain the two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause: (1) to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling; and (2) to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports and exports, both inland and abroad.

Article I, Sec. 8, cl.1; Art. I, Sec. 9, cls. 5 & 6; and Art. I, Sec.10, cls. 2 & 3, of the federal Constitution give express effect to these two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause.

c) The “necessary and proper” clause:  This clause merely delegates to Congress the power to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 3rd para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a  tautology or redundancy” (No. 33, 3rd para).  Madison writes to the same effect in (Federalist No. 44, at 1.).

The clause merely permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the federal Constitution.  No additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

8.  Resolved, That contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only:

“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.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” (Federalist No. 45 , 9th para)

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects…” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end)

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para)

“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [those made by Congress], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps are Hamilton’s] (Federalist No. 27, last para).

That The Federalist Papers – and not the U.S. supreme Court – is the highest authority and evidence “of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning”. 2 The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 1) – usurp powers, as they did with their lawless opinion upholding obamacare, they must be impeached and removed from office (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

9. Resolved, That those within the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the federal government are sweeping away all the barriers of our Constitution; and that no ramparts now remain against their unbridled and insatiable lust for power over THE PEOPLE except for The  States.

That if The States do not now resist all such blatantly unlawful usurpations of power, THE PEOPLE of their States will be delivered into abject slavery subject to the unbridled control of whosoever occupies the office of President.  Our Representatives in Congress have shirked their constitutional obligation to support the Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3), by acquiescing in the blatant usurpations by the Executive Branch; and  have failed in their duty to impeach and remove those within the Executive Branch who usurp powers (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para, and No. 77, last para).  That the supreme Court long ago took the side of those who seek to exercise unlimited control over The States and THE PEOPLE; and that Congress has failed in its duty to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp powers (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

That pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 of our federal Constitution, all State legislators, State Officers and State Judges take a solemn Oath to support our federal Constitution. Therefore, they are bound by sacred Oath to protect THE PEOPLE of their States from the usurpations of the federal government whose clear object is the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States and THE PEOPLE.

That our Framers anticipated the dangers we now face and provided wise counsel for such a time as this.  Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras) states that when “the representatives of the people betray their constituents”, the people have no recourse but to exert “that original right of self-defense” [The Declaration of Independence, 2nd para], against “the usurpations of the national rulers” (5th para from end).

That in a Federation of States united under a federal government for only limited purposes,

“…the people… are…the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…” (4th para from end)

Thus, THE STATE LEGISLATURES are the ultimate bulwark of The People and The Ultimate Human Protectors of our Constitutional Republic:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.” (3rd para from end)

The last paragraph of Federalist No. 28 recognizes that when the federal government seeks

“… a despotism over the great body of the people … [the people] are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense…”

10. Resolved, That because men are corrupt and may not be trusted with power, the federal Constitution fixed the limits to which, and no further, the federal government may go.  Would we be wise if we permit the federal government to destroy the limits the Constitution places upon its powers? Would we be wise if we permit unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Departments of the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives?

That if those who administer the federal government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal Constitution, by disregarding the limits on its powers set forth therein, then annihilation of the State Governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated  government, will be the inevitable consequence.

That the several States, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of infractions to the federal Constitution; and that nullification by those Sovereign States of all unauthorized acts of the federal government is the rightful remedy.

THEREFORE, This State, recurring to its natural rights in matters outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government, declares obamacare void, and of no force, and will take measures of its own for providing that neither that act, nor any others of the federal government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised in any manner whatsoever within This State.

Notes:

1. The above is patterned on Thomas Jefferson’s various writings on nullification, including The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,  written by him in response to the alien and sedition acts passed by Congress which purported to grant to the President tyrannical powers with respect to aliens & “seditious” words.

2. These Resolutions focus on an Act of Congress and administrative rules being made by a Department within the Executive Branch of the federal government. This Model may be easily adapted to address Executive Orders which are outside the scope of the President’s enumerated powers; and supreme Court opinions which exceed their enumerated powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers  in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to undermine the morals of the People and destroy the residuary sovereignity of The States.

3. Several attorneys, historians, and others who claim special knowledge on this subject have asserted that States have no right to nullify anything the federal government does; that The States and The People must submit to the federal government no matter what it does; that only the federal government may question the federal government; that the federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and the opinion of five supreme Court judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.

Such people may not understand the distinction between abuses of delegated powers (e.g., unwise bankruptcy laws – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), for which election of better Representatives is the answer; and usurpations of powers which have not been delegated and are thus outside the lawful reach of the federal government (e.g., obamacare), for which nullification is the proper answer. When any branch of the federal government steps outside of the Constitution to make laws or “rules” or issue “orders” or “opinions” which exceed their delegated powers; The States must resort to those original rights which pre-date & pre-exist Our Constitution to nullify such usurpations by the federal government of undelegated powers.

4. Others who claim special knowledge on this subject insist that a single State may not nullify any act of the federal government; that only a majority of States acting in concert may do so.

They overlook (among other things) the nature of the laws protested in the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions. Those Resolutions addressed laws made by Congress which purported to grant to the President certain dictatorial powers over “aliens” and “seditious words”. The States have no means of stopping the President from enforcing such laws since the President has the raw power to send out armed thugs to arrest people by night; and then to prosecute, convict, & execute them in secret tribunals and chambers. The States may object – but they can’t stop it. The supreme Court may denounce it, but can’t stop it. Only Congress can put an end to it by repealing its usurpatious law and by impeaching & removing a usurping President (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para & No. 77, last para).

But when Congress by means of a law (which is outside the scope of its delegated powers); or the President by means of an executive order (which is outside the scope of his delegated powers); or federal executive departments by means of administrative rules (which they are altogether prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 1 from making); or the supreme Court by means of opinions which contradict Our Constitution; purport to require THE STATES  or THE PEOPLE and THE CHURCHES to do something, or stop doing something, then of course THE STATES – on an individual basis – have both the POWER and the DUTY (imposed by their Art. VI, cl. 3 Oaths of Office) to nullify such usurpatious acts within the boundaries of their States.

These Model Resolutions set forth the Authorities on which they are based, so that State Legislators and Citizens may propose them in their State Legislatures with complete confidence that Our Framers “have their backs”. PH

Endnotes:

1 We can get rid of him earlier if we send enough people to Congress in 2014 with the spine to impeach & convict him and Biden. The Federalist Papers (cited above) are clear that Presidents should be impeached & removed for usurpations of power.

2 See the Minutes of March 4, 1825 of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia  (Thomas Jefferson & James Madison were present) where they voted to make The Federalist Papers one of the texts books for the Law School:

“Resolved that it is the opinion of this board that as to … the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning. 3. the Resolutions of the General assembly of Virginia in 1799. on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the US. 4. the Valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. and that in the branch of the school of Law, which is to treat on the subject of Civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.” [pages 82-83, boldface added]. PH

November 13, 2012

Add to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

November 13, 2012 - Posted by | 10th Amendment, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Nullification by States, nullification of obamacare, Nullification of unconstitutional acts, Nullification Resolutions, obamacare, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, Tennessee Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, Usurpations of power | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

41 Comments »

  1. My job moved overseas, I got another job. My new job doesn’t offer health insurance. For a year I had no health insurance. My knee blew out, no not workers comp, no insurance, I worked in pain, only a total knee replacement would fix it.

    No insurance, no insurance, and since I already had the injury no insurance ti cover knee.

    Now obama care, I got insurance, I pay $435 a month for just me, deductible $3,500. My knee is covered thanks to obamacare.

    I had my knee replaced, I am back to work with no pain. I pay for my insurance and I have paid my deductible.

    How can you say that me and millions others that now have health insurance are hated by you and don’t deserve insurance?

    You don’t have a clue. Stop hating and put your efforts into helping instead of bitching all the time.

    Comment by yournnuts | August 21, 2014 | Reply

    • Post my comments, I would love to hear your plan for affordable health care for 8 million uninsured. Tax paying, Americans.

      Comment by yournnuts | August 21, 2014 | Reply

      • Medical insurance is no business of the federal government! It is not one of the enumerated powers.

        I do have suggestions for health, however: Don’t overeat, eat only healthy foods, ditch the soft drinks, exercise properly, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs, alcohol only in moderation, get the proper amount of sleep, stay away from artificial sweeteners and additives in your food, etc.

        Many people with knee problems, for example, are OVERWEIGHT! Many Americans stuff themselves with junk food and drink, become morbidly obese, and then get knee problems where they need knee replacement, or they give themselves diabetes or cancer or heart disease, and then they demand that others pay their medical bills!

        People must take responsibility for their own health and pay their own bills.

        I say you are a disgrace to this Country and to your Family. You have become a parasite who lives off others, and whines about how others have a moral duty to subsidize your vices, laziness, or lack of planning.

        Comment by Publius Huldah | August 21, 2014 | Reply

    • Why do you believe that you have the right to live at other peoples’ expense? Why do you have the right to have the government FORCE others to subsidize YOUR medical bills?

      Medical bills are a personal/family expense! In the old days, people actually paid their own bills (amazing, isn’t it?); or their families helped; or their church helped; or their communities had bake sales. Or there were voluntary charity hospitals.

      But today, the welfare system has created a huge class of welfare parasites who believe their NEED entitles them to other peoples’ property. This moral corruption – legalized theft – is destroying our morals and economic system. And of course, socialized medicine – obamacare – is totally unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.

      You do not have the wit or wisdom to see this, but once a government solidifies its total control over a People via socialized medicine, the useless eaters are the first to be exterminated. Read up on the euthanasia policies of NAZI Germany before they started liquidating the Jews.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 21, 2014 | Reply

      • Why is no one wants to take away government funding for flood insurance? Residents of the outer banks and other homes on the coast line benefit, why is my tax dollars paying for their homes in high risk areas, move…this is the same reasoning you are using for healthcare.

        How about my tax dollars not be used to fund foreign governments? How about one less war in regions that hate us.

        You can’t afford health insurance now? Log on to the health exchange and get insurance. I receive no government help for paying my health insurance, $3,500 deductible. The health insurance company set the rate I pay. I know this because I got quotes inside and outside the exchange. Please don’t feel sorry for the poor nont for profit insurance companies, they greatly profit from our state and federal government.

        I thank you for alowiing me to post on this site.

        America is still the greatest country in the world, let’s just keep working on our differences.

        Comment by yournnuts | August 22, 2014 | Reply

        • Flood insurance provided by the federal government is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated by the Constitution. People who choose to build in areas prone to flooding must themselves bear the risk THEY decided to take. It is immoral, as well as unconstitutional, to force others to subsidize the risk.

          Foreign aid is unconstitutional and immoral. Our imperialistic wars are immoral.

          I would die before I would accept tax payer subsidies to pay for any medical insurance. It is immoral to live at other peoples’ expense, and I would no more do that than I would mug an old lady and steal her purse. In my own lifetime, I remember quite well when no one had “health insurance”. Amazingly, people paid their own medical bills, worked out something with their doctor, or their families, friends or neighbors voluntarily helped, etc. I remember when my town had community events to raise money to pay for large medical bills incurred by someone due to events beyond his control. It is only recently that people have been manipulated into believing that they MUST have health insurance. But that is merely the prevailing dogma of our time. It is a silly, false, and destructive belief. I live a healthy lifestyle – look much younger than my age – and recognize that one day….. I will die! Yes, no matter how much health insurance or medical care I get, one day, I will die. We need to reacquaint ourselves with the Truth that dying (eventually, when our time comes) is as natural as the rainfall and sunrise.

          The federal government shouldn’t be doing ANYTHING with insurance companies for the Country at Large. Dictating to, or helping, insurance companies is not a power delegated to the federal government in our Constitution.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 22, 2014 | Reply

    • I am sure there are many stories just like your story, where someone who could not get the medical attention they wanted due to lack of insurance and lack of money, signed up for government controlled health care and was able to get some help. That being the case, still does not make it right.
      As PH pointed out, in order for the government to pay your doctor bill, they first have to take that money from someone who worked hard and earned it. No where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to take from me and give to you. That is stealing and then using the stolen money to bribe another voter.
      Obama and the Left gave speech after speech about just how great this would be for us. All lies! There are more uninsured now than before this took effect. Premiums are higher for many people and a lot of people have lost the right to choose their own doctor.
      You think it is so great that the government is helping you with the healthcare you needed. How is it different than that same government taking money from me and buying you a car, just because you want one and cannot afford it?
      You claim to be a taxpayer. How will you like it when they take more of your money and give it to illegal aliens for housing, food, education, healthcare, cell phone, utilities, etc.? They take more and more to the point where you cannot afford the health premium you said you are paying and then you lose your insurance because you cannot afford it any longer.
      I had health insurance prior to Obamacare. I don’t now because it is too expensive for me to buy my own insurance and pay the taxes to cover your doctor bills.
      Grow up and take responsibility for yourself.

      Comment by Mike F | August 22, 2014 | Reply

      • Amen, dear Friend!

        Comment by Publius Huldah | August 22, 2014 | Reply

      • You must have missed it but my health insurance is not free, I pay over $100 a week for my health insurance. I have paid $3,500 deductible to my doctors and hospital.

        I am not over weight, I don’t smoke, no drugs, I pay all my bills, I own a home, I pay taxes. Knee problem is from a car wreck that was not my fault 16 years ago.

        Make sure I understand correctly your health plan is to eat right and don’t smoke?

        Great plan, you should be proud and get your plan into law.

        How about american companies stay in america?

        Comment by yournnuts | August 22, 2014 | Reply

        • Assuming that you are telling the truth in the facts you have set forth: Your medical costs are subsidized – the difference between what you pay and the cost of the medical services you get is subsidized by an increase in the national debt or by taxpayers. Otherwise, you would pay your own medical bills directly and not whine about how you can’t afford medical care.

          Meanwhile, the premiums charged to those who don’t get the welfare subsidies you get are increased to such an extent that they can no longer pay their premiums and thus they lost their medical insurance.

          Get my health plan of healthy living enacted into law? THIS IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT. People must grow up and take responsibility for their own lives, for their own health, and for their own medical bills.

          As as to your comment about how American companies went overseas: WHY DID THEY GO OVERSEAS? B/c the taxes, laws, and regulations imposed by the federal and state governments make it impossible to operate a business here. And the labor unions with their unreasonable demands played a great part in making it impossible to do business here.

          And BTW: Your first two posts were written in the style of a blue collar worker – your 3rd comment is written in the style of a college educated progressive. My guess is that you are young and drank the kool-aid your statist professors served up. You are not an independent thinker.

          Here is a question: Why do you think you have a right to live at other peoples’ expense? Why do you think you have the right to have the governments TAKE property from others and give it to you? Answer that.

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 22, 2014 | Reply

          • I don’t want the government taking anyones property, but they do that before I get my paycheck and beforeI i buy anything.

            No college did not offer free kool-aid and before you ask I did not ask the government to pay for my education. You and I are paying billions and billions in tax dollars for causes that benefit a narrow slice of people, like did you know the TV show “Duck Dynasty'” has receives tax dollars to film their show?

            I never wined about paying for my health care, before the new law took effect, I was denied heath insurance at any price because of my knee. The not for profit health insurance companies that profited from our tax dollars long before Obamacare turned me down because they could under the old law. And turning me down would be ok if not for my tax dollars that are paid to them with not benefit to me.

            Our government is into every part of our lives, that will never change, is that fair, no. Should we stop funding cancer research? Most are smokers? No, same goes for making health care affordable.

            How about term limits for Congress? How about new leadership that uses our tax dollars more wisely?

            Thank you and have a good day.

            Comment by yournnuts | August 22, 2014

          • Of course, the federal government has no constitutional authority to fund cancer research, TV programming, engage in corporate welfare, and most of what it spends money on. Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers only: if you will read through our Constitution and highlight every power delegated to Congress and the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress may lawfully appropriate funds.

            The reason Congress gets away with funding all kinds of things it has no constitutional authority to fund is that our People are ignorant of the Constitution – besides, they wanted the unconstitutional handouts they were getting.

            I need to understand where you “are coming from”. Is it your view that since the federal government spends so much money it has no constitutional authority to spend that you may as well get what you can for yourself?

            Re term limits: The problem isn’t how long they serve – the problem is that all of them ignore our Constitution.

            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 23, 2014

  2. […] educate them and demand they start nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government. States should nullify obamacare! If Legislators aren’t willing to renounce federal funding, recall or defeat them! […]

    Pingback by Mark Levin Refuted (Publius Huldah uses the Federalists papers to counter Mr. Levin’s ideas) | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  3. […] educate them and demand they start nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government. States should nullify obamacare! If Legislators aren’t willing to renounce federal funding, recall or defeat them! […]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah refutes Mark Levin’s Article V Convention: Do you know the Constitution well enough yourself to understand why a Constitutional Convention is dangerous to our Republic? | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  4. […] educate them and demand they start nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government.  States should nullify obamacare!  If Legislators aren’t willing to renounce federal funding, recall or defeat them! […]

    Pingback by Constitutional Convention: Mark Levin Refuted | American Clarion | September 16, 2013 | Reply

  5. […] educate them and demand they start nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government.  States should nullify obamacare!  If Legislators aren’t willing to renounce federal funding, recall or defeat them! […]

    Pingback by Mark Levin Refuted: Keep the Feds in Check with Nullification, not Amendments! « Publius-Huldah's Blog | September 15, 2013 | Reply

  6. The defining example of the Necessary and Proper Clause in U.S. history was McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. The United States Constitution says nothing about establishing a national bank. The U.S. government established a national bank that provided part of the government’s initial capital. In 1819 the federal government opened a national bank in Baltimore , Maryland. In an effort to tax the bank out of business, the government of Maryland imposed a tax on the federal bank. James William McCulloch, a cashier at the bank, refused to pay the tax. Eventually the case was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall held that the power of establishing a national bank could be implied from the U.S. constitution. Marshall ruled that no state could use its taxing power to tax an arm of the national government.

    Comment by Foster Z. Morton | February 11, 2013 | Reply

    • Welcome, Foster

      It is true that McCullouch v. Maryland (1819) held that the “necessary & proper” clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause) together with some other clauses in the Constitution, gave Congress authority to charter a national bank.

      HOWEVER, that was not the original intent of the “necessary & proper” clause. The original intent of the “necessary & proper clause” was this:

      This clause merely delegates to Congress the power to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 3rd para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a “tautology or redundancy” (No. 33, 3rd para). Madison writes to the same effect in Federalist No. 44, at 1.

      So the original intent of the clause was that it merely permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the federal Constitution. No additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

      I believe that McCullough v. Maryland was WRONGLY decided. It’s a heartbreaking case, really.

      Here is the link to the online ed. of The Federalist Papers I use. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2013 | Reply

  7. Obamacare to Hit Smokers with Huge Penalties

    So Obama wants to charge me $5,000 for smoking a cigar and if I refuse then Obama will force me to pay a penalty of $4,000 for not buying his government insurance. Then if I refuse to pay his penalty he’ll send in his brown shirts to kill me.

    Either way, he believes that reducing the number of people eligible for Obamacare will eventually make it cost effective so he can blowhole on what a great leader he is.

    newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-Smokers-Huge-Penalties/2013/01/26/id/487522?s=al&promo_code=12341-1

    Comment by Peabody | January 27, 2013 | Reply

  8. [...] From the Constitution, which is the law of the USA, Huldah gives the following Obamacare analysis titled: Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! [...]

    Pingback by Lawyer Publius Huldah: Nullify Obamacare | USA NEWS FIRST | January 22, 2013 | Reply

  9. [...] Freedom Act,” jump thru the hoops, and you will find the Act. It is short and worth reading. 3. See, e.g. these model Nullification Resolutions for obamacare. 4. Impeachment and removal from office for usurpations of power is expressly authorized by our [...]

    Pingback by TENNESSEE GOVERNOR MUST OBEY TENNESSEE LAW: NO STATE INSURANCE EXCHANGE « How A Conservative Thinks | December 15, 2012 | Reply

  10. [...] 3 See, e.g. these model Nullification Resolutions for obamacare [...]

    Pingback by The Governor of Tennessee Must Obey Tennessee Law: No State Insurance Exchange! | The Constitution Sentinel | December 14, 2012 | Reply

  11. [...] 3 See, e.g. these model Nullification Resolutions for obamacare [...]

    Pingback by The Governor of Tennessee must Obey Tennessee Law: No State Insurance Exchange! | American Conservative News Politics & Opinion - The Land of the Free | December 14, 2012 | Reply

  12. [...] 3 See, e.g. these model Nullification Resolutions for obamacare [...]

    Pingback by Get Your State governor to say “NO!” to kathleen sibelius | Grumpy Opinions | December 12, 2012 | Reply

  13. [...] 3 See, e.g. these model Nullification Resolutions for obamacare [...]

    Pingback by The Governor of Tennessee Must Obey Tennessee Law: No State Insurance Exchange! « Publius-Huldah's Blog | December 12, 2012 | Reply

  14. [...] 3 See, e.g. these model Nullification Resolutions for Obamacare [...]

    Pingback by Tennessee Governor Must Obey Tennessee Law: No State Insurance Exchange | American Clarion | December 10, 2012 | Reply

  15. Reblogged this on Political Ness.

    Comment by DarcsFalcon | December 8, 2012 | Reply

  16. Please ! ..”NO” Obamacare !!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Gerald Lane | December 3, 2012 | Reply

    • Welcome! Did you go to the rally today?

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | December 5, 2012 | Reply

  17. P.H. and all, I’ve begun work on a draft letter (at article’s end) to my State Representative, recommending the introduction/sponsor of resolutions in the Legislature for the nullification of “ObamaCare”. Thought that a discussion of precisely how we might best present these models would be useful and instructive. I’d like to hear any suggestions that y’all might have, not only on the structure and content of a cover letter, but also on improving the chances that the right person might actually read it and the attachments.

    Comment by subconch | November 20, 2012 | Reply

    • Dear One, I am sorry for the health problems of your daughter.

      Re your draft letter: Just 4 substantive comments:

      1. Originally, citizenship was only with one’s State – one was a “citizen” of Virginia, NOT of the “United States”. See, e.g., Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, which describes the jurisdiction of the federal courts: Their “diversity jurisdiction” is between Citizens of different States. It was not until the 14th Amendment (Sec. 1) that “citizenship” became connected with the “United States”. Since then, one is a Citizen of his State and of “the United States”. [This extension of citizenship to the United States was a serious assault on federalism and the retained Sovereignty of the States.]

      2. When the United States is referred to in its capacity as a national government, one says “the”. But when one refers to them as a federation of sovereign States, united only for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution, one refers to them in the plural: “these”.

      3. Re “breach of contract”. It is fundamental that there is NO “CONTRACT” BETWEEN THE STATES & THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE PEOPLE. The People and The States pre-dated & pre-existed the federal government. The federal government was CREATED by the Constitution, and did not even exist until the Constitution was ratified and the new federal government commenced operation in 1789.

      This is why Alexander Hamilton called the federal government our “creature” (Federalist Paper No. 33, 5th para); and Thomas Jefferson did the same in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8th Resolution)

      http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s41.html

      So it is impossible for the federal government to “breach the contract” or “breach the compact” b/c it was NEVER PARTY TO IT – but merely its “creature”.

      But the federal government does violate The Constitution – it does act outside the scope of the powers delegated to it, etc. Thus, obamacare is a “blatant violation of the Constitution”, but it can’t be a “breach of contract”.

      4. “Reclaim and reassert your retained sovereign authority” is stronger linguistically and philosophically than “discover your sovereign authority”. Remember! The purpose of writing is to shape the thinking (such as it is) of your readers on all possible levels.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 22, 2012 | Reply

      • Dear P.H., Re my daughter, thank you. I’m happy to report that her health is fine, and her smile is a beautiful thing. I pondered whether to include the personal part in my public draft at all, deciding it was a better illustration than to say “insert your story here”.

        Truly, I believe those who rely most on the healthcare system will be harmed most by obamacare. I shudder at the thought… had this behemoth been in full force then, and then… And thinking also of the many other families we’ve come to know through it all, real human beings, unbelievably gut-wrenching trials. ~Take a number, take a pill, we’ve votes to buy, and just because.

        Anyway, to your comments, there is so very much here.

        Regarding contract, you are of course correct, and all it took to verify was a trip to the familiar Webster’s 1828. I have for some time, wrongly, referred to the Constitution as a contract. This came from a fundamental misunderstanding of a contract, where in truth both parties get something out of the deal, and via the Constitution, the federal government is intended to get nothing. Might this reasoning serve as a supplement to what you’ve already set forth. Thanks for the “eureka” moment.

        Webster’s on “constitution” uses terms like enact, establish, appoint, designate, paramount to laws enacted, rules for govt., principles for govt., and limits & controls on the power of government. Implies a kind of one-sidedness, does it not?

        In the draft letter, I’ve inserted your phrases in the “contract” instance and at “reclaim and reassert” (perfect).

        I have replaced “as a citizen of these…” with “as a citizen of the“. The intent here, in the letter’s context, was merely to identify as one “who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise” (webster’s) nationally, and one who is mindful of, and concerned about, the activities of the national government.

        You’ve opened up a depth to explore on “citizen of the U.S.”, within which I’ll delve with more time. I should only note that as early as 1828, the verbatim phrase was used twice in the definition of “citizen”. Thanks :]

        Comment by subconch | November 23, 2012 | Reply

        • The compact is between the STATES who ratified the Constitution. The States have mutual benefits and obligations. Do read Resolution 8 of Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions.

          Perhaps I make too much of the citizenship issue (i.e., whether citizenship is with the individual States or with The United States, or both) – But in earlier times, people identified with their States – and for the most part, had very little to do with the federal government, since the “national” aspects of the federal government were so limited and defined. And the confusion is compounded by the conceptions of “these United States”, when speaking of The Federation and its Member States; and “the United States”, when speaking of the national government.

          I am glad your daughter is all right!

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 23, 2012 | Reply

  18. [...] 4.  States must nullify obamacare.   Here are Nullification Resolutions States may use to nullify obamacare and the HHS rules. [...]

    Pingback by The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare. « Publius-Huldah's Blog | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  19. [...] a wonderful and scholarly paper reaching deeply into the subject of nullification entitled: Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! which was published in the aftermath of Obama’s re-election and the Democrat Senate’s retention [...]

    Pingback by Once we were States. Once we would say “NO” « SubConch | November 14, 2012 | Reply

  20. My dear PH,
    I believe that is one of your finest works. Even I can easily understand every aspect, so our “leaders” should be able to follow the logic.
    Thank you so much!

    Comment by Mike Foil | November 14, 2012 | Reply

    • Well, thank you, dear, but it is Thomas Jefferson’s work, not mine. Much of it is copied straight from The Kentucky Resolutions; and re the obviously contemporary issues (rule-making by executive agencies), I was able to copy his style.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | November 14, 2012 | Reply

  21. [...] Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! [...]

    Pingback by Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It , what an excellant idea « GOD, GUTS,OLD GLORYand AMMO | November 13, 2012 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 839 other followers

%d bloggers like this: