Tenth Amendment Center: state AGs miss target with health care lawsuits
RenewAmerica staff
LOS ANGELES — Relying on a federal lawsuit to invalidate the new health care reform law is not only an uncertain endeavor in the face of decades of bad Supreme Court precedent, it could also take years to go anywhere, according to the Tenth Amendment Center.
"The reality is this, considering a lawsuit as the primary response leaves the people in opposition holding the bag," said Michael Boldin, founder of the Center. "That's why we advocate a solution to this mess that leaves the people, not the courts, in charge. It's called "nullification."
"Prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of its own powers, those powers would continue to grow, regardless of elections, courts, separation of powers, or other much-vaunted checks and balances in our system," Boldin said.
Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the Democrats' recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is declaring the law in question to be void, inoperative, or non-effective within the boundaries of that state — or in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Today, the Tenth Amendment Center announced a different strategy for activists and state government: "We are pleased to announce model nullification legislation that is crafted to specifically address the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a state level," Boldin said. "We encourage grassroots activists and state legislators alike to work to get this bill passed in their home states."
The legislation, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, would codify in state law that the new health care legislation "is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States,...is hereby declared to be invalid,...shall not be recognized,...is specifically rejected,...and shall be considered null and void and of no effect" within the boundaries of any state enacting it.
The Nullification Act also mandates that it "shall be the duty" of a state's legislature "to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement."
"The greatest problem with relying on lawsuits by state Attorneys General for constitutional protection is the reality that the Supreme Court has set years and years of bad precedent, allowing the federal government to control many aspects of our lives that the Founders and Ratifiers never authorized," said Boldin.
"The real question we must ask is this," he continued, "Does the Constitution mean what the founders said it means, or does it mean what the Supreme Court says it means...until it changes its mind?"
"Like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today the same as they meant the moment it was ratified," said Boldin. "The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause have not been amended, and the original constitutional meanings of those clauses do not permit the federal government to exercise such powers."
According to the Center, on a political level, the new health care reform legislation not only violates conservative principles by greatly enlarging federal power and control, but is also an affront to traditional progressive principles, because it requires millions of people to give their money to an industry that many liberals revile, and interferes with the ability of states and local communities from enacting their own health care programs as they see fit.
"It's time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around," said Boldin. "Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keep our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they'd be and where they belong...close to home."
March 25, 2010
LOS ANGELES — Relying on a federal lawsuit to invalidate the new health care reform law is not only an uncertain endeavor in the face of decades of bad Supreme Court precedent, it could also take years to go anywhere, according to the Tenth Amendment Center.
"The reality is this, considering a lawsuit as the primary response leaves the people in opposition holding the bag," said Michael Boldin, founder of the Center. "That's why we advocate a solution to this mess that leaves the people, not the courts, in charge. It's called "nullification."
"Prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of its own powers, those powers would continue to grow, regardless of elections, courts, separation of powers, or other much-vaunted checks and balances in our system," Boldin said.
Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the Democrats' recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is declaring the law in question to be void, inoperative, or non-effective within the boundaries of that state — or in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Today, the Tenth Amendment Center announced a different strategy for activists and state government: "We are pleased to announce model nullification legislation that is crafted to specifically address the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a state level," Boldin said. "We encourage grassroots activists and state legislators alike to work to get this bill passed in their home states."
The legislation, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, would codify in state law that the new health care legislation "is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States,...is hereby declared to be invalid,...shall not be recognized,...is specifically rejected,...and shall be considered null and void and of no effect" within the boundaries of any state enacting it.
The Nullification Act also mandates that it "shall be the duty" of a state's legislature "to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement."
"The greatest problem with relying on lawsuits by state Attorneys General for constitutional protection is the reality that the Supreme Court has set years and years of bad precedent, allowing the federal government to control many aspects of our lives that the Founders and Ratifiers never authorized," said Boldin.
"The real question we must ask is this," he continued, "Does the Constitution mean what the founders said it means, or does it mean what the Supreme Court says it means...until it changes its mind?"
"Like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today the same as they meant the moment it was ratified," said Boldin. "The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause have not been amended, and the original constitutional meanings of those clauses do not permit the federal government to exercise such powers."
According to the Center, on a political level, the new health care reform legislation not only violates conservative principles by greatly enlarging federal power and control, but is also an affront to traditional progressive principles, because it requires millions of people to give their money to an industry that many liberals revile, and interferes with the ability of states and local communities from enacting their own health care programs as they see fit.
"It's time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around," said Boldin. "Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keep our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they'd be and where they belong...close to home."