Ending Obamacare: Nullification by the States is Legal and Necessary #nullification #obamacare

My friend Adrienne at Adrienne's Corner has a post and a valuable link up today.  Her post links to a blog about "Understanding the Constitution," in which the author Publius rebuts Mark Levin's "Liberty Amendments" approach.  Publius argues that nullification is the proper and most efficient way to end Obamacare.  This is a must read.

Nullification was discussed by the Founding Fathers as a way that individual states can frustrate unconstitutional federal laws by simply refusing to implement or support those laws.  This is not as radical as it sounds, and it has been used before by certain states in our history (some recently).  South Carolina is on the verge of nullifying a federal law, by refusing to implement Obamacare.  If South Carolina carries it off, you can bet other states will quickly follow her lead.

A year ago, there were four states planning to nullify Obamacare.  See that discussion here.

Wyoming has been considering the possibility of nullifying federal laws on gun control.  See that here.

Further Reading and Study: 
State Nullification:  What Is It? by Thomas Woods
The Tenth Amendment Center (website)
U.S. Constitution and Amendments - Actual Texts
Understanding the Constitution - a Blog by Publius Huldah

Nebraska - Next to Assert State Sovereignty?

According to the Omaha World Herald, Nebraska is considering joining the new States' Rights movement, which consists merely of putting the federal government on notice that it has exceeded its Constitutional authority with a demand to cease and desist.

“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska."

However, an obviously liberal state senator impugned the integrity of those supporting the resolution, implying that it was "racist:"

State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln said the proposals sound disturbingly similar to the states' rights arguments made in defense of racial segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.

“The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of states' rights,” he said. “I'm not saying that the people making the case now are racist, but I don't think Nebraska needs to be getting in bed with these kinds of resolutions.”

Avery's analogy is, of course, completely off the wall and typical of a liberal; if you can't win the argument, slander the opposition. Do not assert your Constitutional rights lest you somehow be considered a "raaaaacist." But the Dems have used that dirty pool way too many times for it to have any real effect.

States' rights are guaranteed by the 10th amendment, which states:

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.

The state of Massachusetts had cited the 10th amendment in its decision to legalize gay marriage within its borders -- and it is correct in stating it is the right of the states to make that decision. So according to Bill Avery, if you support "States' Rights" then you must be in favor of gay marriage. Brilliant logic, Avery.

Other issues that are (or should be) within the rights of the states under the 10th amendment are:

• abortion (either for or against, notwithstanding the bad law of Roe v. Wade)
• medical marijuana
• right to carry
• age of consent
• legalized gambling

What is interesting in the article noted above is that Arizona has proposed a resolution that would exempt its citizens from a federal health care plan. I love it!

The Revolution continues. Read it all here.