Tag: 10th amendment

The zombie analogy used here demonstrates an accurate portrayal of the typical interview a constitutionalist and historian can expect from most 'news' types nowadays. Though satire is used here, the topis is rock solid and very serious.

"Today's decisions mean states will continue addressing this issue, but I am troubled by the Court's willingness to allow a district federal court to overrule the people of California who voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. I remain of the principled belief that marriage should continue to stand for the union of a man and woman. The activist Supreme Court has decided that the desires of adults are more important than the needs of children and the orderly continuance of society. It's also disappointing the Court overruled the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed the legislative branch with bipartisan majorities and was signed into law by President Clinton.  I look forward to having both voters and their elected officials continuing to be engaged on this and many other issues before our democracy."

Period.

Because the Queers (Their label not mine) want to play house, adopt children to indoctrinate into their LIFESTYLE and get the benefits normal couples receive, this has been pushed. As for those benefits, our tax dollars being used to encourage a perverse and dangerous lifestyle is troubling.  It violates our freedom of conscience.  With the ruling, comes a claim to federal benefits for same sex couples recognized as being legally 'married'.

And our REPUBLICAN Governor is not willing to stand up for the state voters' referendum.

"The decisions just came down and they don't apply to Michigan. So the way I view it is, I'm going to follow what Michigan law is, and I'll keep track of what's going on in the federal courts," Snyder said.

I was not at all surprised to find the [quite correct] position Senator Patrick Colbeck (R-7th) had taken on the issue of 4111.  His office confirmed his decision to oppose the legislation, and offered exactly what should be the next step in the effort to ensure we have not completely destroyed our ability to provide coverage for employees and families.  Especially considering the grotesque horror of Obamacare and its destructive path towards failure. They say:

"The Senator is exploring other options with regard to potential legislative action that would offer free-market alternatives to a federal or state-federal partnership exchange so the state will have something to fall back on should the provisions of Obamacare be unmanageable or unenforceable."

Its likely that without the state capitulating, there is NO way the federal exchanges can work. The infrastructure would have to be built completely from scratch, and would be unworkable for many years. This allows the weight of such an effort to fall on itself, and no state money or resources need to be involved.  Expanding freedoms (as that statement suggests) for the insurance offerings in Michigan could do wonders.  De-regulating with safety devices built in can make a better product available and cut free some of the innovation as yet unseen.

But until the state is willing to exercise it's 10th amendment authority, its won't happen.  All of the best efforts would make it even harder for Obamacare to work, and by "work" I mean destroy health care as we know it.

And there are people who want that .. badly.

True to form, It seems Michigan's governor Rick Snyder is all about cronyism.  Up or down. About "partnerships", and complicit deal making with bigger government, and BIGGER business. Big. Big. Big.

Big.

The insurance behemoths that will briefly exist under a 'marketplace' of insurers will likely make a lot of folks quite well-to-do.  Though we should have little problem with entrepreneurial folks and making a buck, it is worth noting it ain't gonna be Joe six pack, but carefully selected recipients of the public's new expense of an insurance exchange.  As this develops, pay careful attention to the 'players', and note that prior to 2010, many of the businesses handling billions in insurance premiums didn't exist.

Same show. Same suckers. New ringmasters.

Step. Right. Up.

And the governor of our state is as-they-say, "all in". He apparently views such matters as one might view a Siamese twin sharing the same heart. So when the poison in the federal government is injected, we all feel the 'euphoria'. From the Detroit News:

The Michigan health insurance exchange required by federal law got a boost from Washington Thursday with a $30.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for planning and implementation.

The Michigan Affordable Insurance Exchange will be an online marketplace where insurance firms compete to sell low-cost health insurance to consumers. Gov. Rick Snyder hopes to form Michigan's exchange in partnership with the U.S. A blueprint for the plan is due to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Feb. 15.

Michigan last year missed a deadline to try to form its own exchange because Republican legislators saw the move as backing President Barack Obama's 2010 massive health care overhaul.

We have news that Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young has been added to the speakers list for the "Sovereignty Tea Party" Rally held on the Michigan Capitol steps Sunday October 10, 2010.

The Rally is to demonstrate support for the 10th amendment.  Organizers call out:

"Join your fellow Michigan patriots as we support our 10th Amendment Sovereignty rights against Unconstitutional Federal over reach such as ObamaCare, a prime example of national law that oversteps state jurisdiction and results in the loss of rights of Michigan's citizens!"

10th amendment violations by the federal government has been a major issue often noted by Tea Partiers.

Anyways, of course the feds don't like being challenged, and in the case of the BATFE, will claim that the state law doesn't mean anything. The same effectively holds true on the medical marijuana side of the coin as well.

Of course these are just two areas that I've used as examples. There are many more, one of which is the issue of the EPA declaring that they will regulate CO2 emissions if congress doesn't act, and states responding with a lawsuit.

Despite the many areas in which states can, or have, pushed for their sovereignty, I chose to use these two examples because of the way that the government likes to handle violations in those areas - usually violently.

It's one thing for the state to declare their sovereignty in one of these areas, but unless they are actually willing to take action against federal agents who go against these declarations and laws, it's all talk.

Wyoming's firearms freedom act is a good start in regards to this. Not only does the law tell the federal government to bugger off, but that attempts by federal agents to apply federal law to state produced and held firearms will subject the agents to jail time.

Like I said though, it's a start. Reading the article further, you'll see that Rep. Allen Jaggi claims that particular section of the law to be symbolic.

If that's the case, then why have it?

Not only that, but the article further continued to mention that if current litigation regarding Montana's firearms freedom act don't pan out, they might try with Wyoming's.

Let's be perfectly honest: The chance of a federal court actually ruling in favor of a state's 10th Amendments rights? Probably not. Cases like Wickard v. Filburn show the love federal courts have for a bloated interpretation of the ICC.

Even if there was a ruling in favor of the state law (keep in mind that the state itself is not a party in the suit) at the trial court level, I have lower expectations for a win in an appellate court. In the event it goes before the SCOTUS (and I wouldn't be surprised if they deny writ), I wouldn't make any bets.

I'm not going sugar coat things. In the event states pass laws which expressly indicate to the federal government that they're done dicking around in regards to the 10th Amendment - i.e. these laws, like the one example I mentioned already, have provisions for imprisoning law enforcement agents found to be in violation - they need to be willing to back it up regardless of what the SCOTUS or any other federal court thinks.

Yes, if that means telling the federal government "ef you very much, we're not releasing your guy", then that's what should happen. At that point, the dice should just let fall where they will. We didn't break off from Britain because some royal court ruled it constitutional, and states aren't going to nullify unconstitutional laws if they don't push when the pushing is needed.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION CC

On September 9, 2009, Introduced by Reps. Calley and McMillin and referred to the Committee on Health Policy.

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state constitution of 1963, by adding section 28 to article I, to provide a right to independent health care.