Friday, December 07, 2012

Four States to Vote on Nullification of Obamacare

The Tenth Amendment Center states that four states are planning to vote on bills that would nullify Obamacare, making the law null and void and unenforceable in those states.  Another ten or so states are mulling over the creation of similar bills.  Nullification, an old American strategy, may yet be the best way to end the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The principle of nullification is not new, and is described in Thomas E. Wood's book 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.  The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 concluded that if the federal government should encroach upon the powers reserved to the states, the states have a right to nullify the offending law and refuse to enforce it—after all, a law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. Taken together, these ideas became known as the “Principles of ’98."

It doesn't matter if a federal court, including the Supreme Court, decides differently.  Ultimately, it is the right of the individual states to determine the constitutionality of any federal laws and choose to obey them or not.

This principle has precedent in American history.  Of course, there is the well-known "Nullification Crisis" of 1833, when South Carolina passed an ordinance of nullification against the 1828 federal Tariff of Abominations that would have greatly increased the tax on imported goods from Britain, resulting in a significant lowering of British demand for Southern cotton.  President Andrew Jackson was prepared to send federal troops to South Carolina to enforce the tariff, but a compromise ended the crisis.

However, that nullification crisis of 1833 wasn't the first time individual states have nullified federal laws.  The first was by Massachusetts, reacting to federal government's Embargo of 1807.  This embargo was designed to punish Britain and France for depredations of American neutrality rights on the seas, and prohibited any American trade with foreign nations whatsoever.  The U.S. Navy was to enforce the embargo by stopping and searching merchant ships -- a clear violation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.  Further, the embargo badly damaged the New England economy.

A federal district court ruled the embargo constitutional, but Massachusetts did not agree, and passed state laws to nullify the federal embargo.  The nullification held.  The important thing to note is that the federal court's decision was not the last word on the matter.   The Massachusetts House explained:
“Were it true, that the measures of government once passed into an act, the constitutionality of that act is stamped with the deal of infallibility, and is no longer a subject for the deliberation or remonstrance of the citizen, to what monstrous lengths might not an arbitrary and tyrannical administration carry its power…. Were such doctrine sound, what species of oppression might not be inflicted on the prostrate liberties of our country? If such a doctrine were true, our Constitution would be nothing but a name—nay, worse, a fatal instrument to sanctify oppression, and legalize the tyranny which inflicts it.”  (Thomas E. Woods, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.)
The Governor of Connecticut, John Trumbull, agreed with the Massachusetts legislature, stating:
“Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task—it is their right—it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.”  (See Woods Jr., Thomas E. (2007-07-10). 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (p. 30). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.) 
Conclusions:  Nullification of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is both legal and constitutional, and is undoubtedly the most expedient way to dispose of this unconstitutional and oppressive federal law.  However, each state will have to pass its own separate nullification laws.  Which state will be the first to do so?  Once one does, others will quickly follow.



9 comments:

Adrienne said...

I'm a firm believer that nullification is a valid option. I've read Wood's book and have often discussed this at length with my Spokane blogger buddy, Mark, who is a law professor at Gonzaga. He doesn't believe nullification is valid. I think he's wrong. 'Nuff said ;-)

My bottom line is very, very simple. If the feds can pass any law they want and the states have no choice in the matter, then we need to rename this country "A Big Blob of Areas" and NOT The United States.

Stogie Chomper said...

Yes, your buddy is wrong. Nullification is entirely valid and should be used to void Obamacare. I hope some state has the gonads to do it, and soon.

Worsham Abbott said...

There are many completely legal means of retaliation we can undertake against our enemies in Washington, starting with reciprocal tax collection treaties. If each Republican held state would simply refuse to enforce and enable the collection of federal income taxes within their borders you could cut the Commies off at the knees.. Do not allow the Feds to use state court systems to file liens and prevent the operation of federal law enforcement agencies within our borders for the collection of revenues by passing any and all LAWFULLY restrictive measures at our disposal. We should share no information with the swine and allow no new federal installations in our territories through the use of restrictive zoning strategies. Let Obama own Obamacare and make him responsible for it's implementation. Better yet, withdraw from Medicaid altogether
and contribute no state money to it as it is, after all, Obama's problem. We can then use the money saved from Medicaid to leave the Federal Education Indoctrination System. We must treat the Federal Government as the godless unrelenting vile enemy that it has become.

Stogie Chomper said...

Worsham, we should study these possible strategies. The hard part would be getting state legislatures elected with the courage and the will to use them.

Always On Watch said...

I expect Virginia to try some kind of nullification measure.

Paul H. Lemmen said...

Your bottom line is correct. If nullification is not legal and proper then there exists no State sovereignty.

Adrienne said...

This is all because the judges rely on "precedent" instead of the Constitution. Example: Roe v Wade is bad law. Everyone - including the judges knows this - and yet they base more bad law using RvW as precedent. Does that make one bit of sense??

Paul H. Lemmen said...

Only if one views it as part of the incremental imposition of totalitarian control ...

Adrienne said...

Exactly!