The Tennessee health care nullification bill passes its first round in the House

Comments Off on The Tennessee health care nullification bill passes its first round in the House

Well the subcommittee did the right thing and passed the Tennessee Healthcare Freedom Act onto the Commerce Committee. If it passes thru there it goes to the House for a vote that will likely be for it.

The health care nullification bill passes its first round in the House

Last week tea party activists jeered when the rules were applied to State Representative Mike Bell‘s bill, HR 3433-the Tennessee Health Freedom Act. The legislation had to wait one week before it got its hearing before the House Industrial Impact Subcommittee because it was amended to reconcile it with it’s companion Senate bill. When the hearing came this morning, the bill wasn’t pushed into irrelevance, as some has suspected. It passed the subcommittee and now goes before the full Commerce Committee:

“These are simply steps to protect the people of Tennessee,” said Rep. Eric Swafford, R-Pikeville, in summarizing the four proposals. He said there is a move toward “big brother” federal government that endangers Tennesseans’ rights.

If this legislation should pass out of the full Commerce Committee, it will almost certainly pass the House. If the Governor should veto the bill, that veto can and should be over-ridden. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to the passage of this bill is the fact that Rep. Susan Lynn (R-Mount Juliet) has a virtually identical bill which also passed out of the Industrial Impact Subcommittee today. The House can only pass one of these bills, and it makes sense to pass the one which the Senate has already passed resoundingly, and that is Mike Bell’s legislation-House Resolution 3433.

The sponsor of the Senate version of this bill which has passed is Representative Lynn’s Senate Republican Primary opponent, Senator Mae Beavers of Mt. Juliet.

I would beg Representative Lynn to consider that there is a larger principle at stake here than her being able to say that she passed such an important piece of legislation rather than her opponent. The right of the people of this State to make health care choices for themselves rather than have the federal government dictate those choices in any way is too important to be held hostage to any personal political consideration-those of us who know Representative Lynn know where her heart is on this issue and so do her constituents and potential constituents. Most importantly, this legislation defends the right of Tennessee’s legislative body, which represents our people more directly than does any body of the federal government, to make decisions about health care or any other matter completely independent of the dictates of the federal government.

It is time that our legislatures in the several States begin to assert their right to have a greater say over our money and our internal affairs.

Examiner.com

Advertisements

What are the People of a State to do if the authorities in their State refuse to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?

Comments Off on What are the People of a State to do if the authorities in their State refuse to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?

Here’s a great article on what we the people  can do about federal usurpation of the Constitution and what James Madison the Father of the Constitution said about it in the Federalist papers. This was written by a friend of mine Publius Huldah a retired Tennessee Constitutional lawyer and a good one I might add.

States’ Remedies


1. In Federalist No. 46 (1st para), James Madison says the ultimate authority over both the State and federal governments resides in the People.  What, then, are the People of a State to do if the authorities in their State refuse to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?

2. Democrats, including Democrat State officials, seem to place party loyalty over the Constitution and their own State. TPN is non-partisan. But it is the Democrats who are destroying our country. What do we do? (1) Learn how to talk to Democrats. (2) Defeat them at all levels in the upcoming elections. (3) Continually petition State officials of both parties to resist unconstitutional federal encroachments. As other States organize to resist such federal encroachments, keep urging your State officials to join in.

3. Federalist No. 46 (7th para) discusses how individual States or several States carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. If a particular State takes an action which the federal government doesn’t like, but which has the support of the People of that State, the federal government can’t do anything about it unless it is willing to apply some type of pressure.

When several States oppose an unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government, Madison says they have powerful means of opposition:  the disquietude of the people, their repugnance (e.g., baby-killing enshrined into public policy), the Peoples’ refusal to co-operate with the officers of the federal government; the opposition of the State officials; and all those legislative devices State Legislatures can invent to thwart & impede the federal government in its unconstitutional schemes.

So, in para 7, Madison contemplates that not all States will oppose unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. But he shows that this need not impede the States who do. Such States need not implement in their States the federal government’s lawless usurpations.  Have we forgotten how to just say, “NO! You have no authority under the Constitution to do this, and the Sovereign State of X and the Sovereign People of the State of X won’t permit this.”  If we have taken the Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3), then we are bound by Honor to support it!

4.  Note that Madison doesn’t say the States should file lawsuits in federal court. And WHY would Sovereign States, which formed a federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive) exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress or encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)? All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time. Why do States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?

Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not even the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution!  Alexander Hamilton said federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 9th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, 10th para). Madison (or Hamilton) said that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “…the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance” (Federalist No. 49, 3rd Para).

Finally, we already know that obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress in the Constitution!

5.  In para 8, Madison discusses a “general alarm” among the States as to encroachments by the federal government. Here, Madison contemplates concerted “plans of resistance” among the States; and Madison says it may come to a “trial of force” if a crazed federal government doesn’t back down. In para 10, Madison says that the federal government’s “schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people”.

6.  In para 9, Madison discusses the federal government’s initiation of a “trial of force”.         But who would fight for the federal government?  Madison spoke of the regular Army as the force used by the federal government.  But that is the Army of our children and neighbors’ children!  Surely we need not fear them. The federal government does have, here & there, those heroic, noble, and brave men who shoot nursing mothers in the forehead, young boys in the back, and gas & apparently incinerate men, women & children. How many are they?  Then there is Obama’s personal “civilian national security force”?  Has it been established?  Even so, would they be honorable men, or a collection of thugs?  In any event, Madison said, “…it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”

7. When we quote James Madison on what States may do when the federal government has encroached upon the powers reserved by the States and the People; we quote a high Authority on The Constitution. James Madison is the Father of the Constitution, the author of many of the Federalist Papers, and 4th President of the United States.  States act lawfully when they follow the guidance of James Madison. When the federal government descends into lawlessness & tyranny, The States and The People may protect and preserve their Constitution – as they are already sworn to do.

8. Yes, the ultimate authority resides in The People.  But this does not mean that The People should – or need to – initiate a show of force.  Remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King!  He put on his clerical collar and went out into the streets with others to protest the LAWS which enforced segregation.  They used non-violent civil disobedience:  Black people sat down at “white’s only” lunch counters!  Black people sat in the front of the busses.  They did not initiate force.  The moral superiority of their position could not be denied, and they won.

9.  We have Our sacred Constitution.  The most important concepts for you to learn are these:  (1) Enumerated Powers (2) Why neither the “general welfare”, the “interstate commerce”, nor the “necessary & proper” clauses authorize Congress (or the President or the federal courts) to exceed their enumerated powers (3) The true meaning of the “Rule of Law” and how that differs from the “Rule of Men”; (4) What is “federalism”, and (5) The origin of our Rights and why you must NEVER speak of  “constitutional” rights. My paper on Rights explains the moral superiority of our position. You must learn why our position is morally superior to that of the statists. And you must be prepared to explain it at all times.

May God be merciful and grant us national repentance and a peaceful political resolution.

PubliusHuldah.wordpress.com

Spread the Word

2 Comments

A friend of mine, another Steve, sent this email to me.  I have sent it along to more than 20, and I thought this would be a great post for you to copy and send to your friends…especially the liberal ones.

An idea whose time has come

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.

Many citizens have no idea that members of Congress

  • receive retirement checks till death; of the same pay earned after even only one term,
  • they don’t pay into Social Security,
  • they specifically exempted themselves from many laws they have passed

(such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment)

The latest is to exempt themselves from Health Care Reform they just passed…

Ordinary citizens must live under those laws.

Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical.

We do not have an elite that is above the law.

I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever.

The self-serving must stop.

This is a good way to do that.

It is an idea whose time has come.

Have each person contact a minimum of Twenty people on their Address list, in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.

This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the  United States  Constitution

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the  United States  that does not apply equally to the elected officials, Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the  United States .”

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

Comments Off on Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

Here’s an article by Judge Andrew Napolitano that needs no commentary on first.

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” Then he shot back: “How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress’s powers only to those granted in the Constitution.

One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison’s understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept “regular.”

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

Applying these principles to President Barack Obama’s health-care proposal, it’s clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one’s health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.

The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined “to keep regular” the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state.

That’s right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person’s appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.

What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with “free” health care that the rest of us will end up paying for. Their only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever they can get away with. They aren’t upholding the Constitution—they are evading it.

Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is “Dred Scott’s Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America” (Nelson, 2009).

WSJ.online.com

Iowa Town Renames Good Friday to ‘Spring Holiday’ and Causes a Stir

1 Comment

When will these type people learn…..America is a Christian nation…..always has been and always will be. We have observed Christian holidays since our ancestors arrived here. This does not violate “separation of church and state” because that is a myth…..the founding fathers didn’t practice it and none of our ancestors did until the Supreme Court in 1947 created the new law, of which BTW they don’t  have the Constitutional authority to create new laws, only Congress is given that authority in the Constitution.

Iowa Town Renames Good Friday to ‘Spring Holiday’


One week before the most solemn day in the Christian year, the city of Davenport, Iowa removed Good Friday from its municipal calendar, setting off a storm of complaints from Christians and union members whose contracts give them that day off.

Taking a recommendation by the Davenport Civil Rights Commission to change the holiday’s name to something more ecumenical, City Administrator Craig Malin sent a memo to municipal employees announcing Good Friday would officially be known as “Spring Holiday.”

“My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday,” said city council alderman Bill Edmond. “People are genuinely upset because this is nothing but political correctness run amok.”

Edmond said the city administrator made the change unilaterally and did not bring it to the council for a vote, a requirement for a change in policy.

“The city council didn’t know anything about the change. We were blind sided and now we’ve got to clean this mess up. How do you tell people the city renamed a 2,000 year old holiday?” said Edmond.

It didn’t take long for the city the resurrect the name Good Friday. Malin was overruled today and the words “Spring Holiday” disappeared.

Good Friday commemorates the day Jesus was crucified and died. Christians celebrate his resurrection the following Sunday, Easter.

//

The Civil Rights Commission said it recommended changing the name to better reflect the city’s diversity and maintain a separation of church and state when it came to official municipal holidays.

“We merely made a recommendation that the name be changed to something other than Good Friday,” said Tim Hart, the commission’s chairman. “Our Constitution calls for separation of church and state. Davenport touts itself as a diverse city and given all the different types of religious and ethnic backgrounds we represent, we suggested the change.”

News of the change could not have come at more significant time in the Christian calendar. News of the name change spread through the town on Palm Sunday, the beginning of Holy Week, becoming a topic of conversation at church services throughout Davenport.

ABCNews.go.com

Tea Partiers…Radicals?

Comments Off on Tea Partiers…Radicals?

If you don’t catch World Net Daily, you’re missing some great articles.  Couldn’t pass this one up without sharing…

The real anti-Americans


Pat Buchanan

World Net Daily

As Democrats, after a Sunday rally on the Capitol grounds, marched to the House hand-in-hand to vote for health-care reform, tea partiers reportedly shouted the “N-word” at John Lewis and another black congressman. A third was allegedly spat upon. And Barney Frank was called a nasty name.

Tea partiers deny it all. And neither audio nor video of this alleged incident has been produced, though TV cameras and voice recorders were everywhere on the Hill.

Other Democrats say their offices were vandalized and they’ve been threatened. A few received, and eagerly played for cable TV, obscene phone calls they got.

If true, this is crude and inexcusable behavior. And any threat should be investigated. But Democrats are also exploiting these real, imaginary or hoked-up slurs to portray themselves as political martyrs and to smear opponents as racists and bigots.

This is the politics of desperation.

Majority Whip James Clyburn accuses Republicans of “aiding and abetting … terrorism.” New York Times columnist Frank Rich compared the tea-party treatment of Democrats to Nazi treatment of the Jews during Kristallnacht:

“How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.”

Kristallnacht, “Crystal Night,” the “Night of Broken Glass,” was the worst pogrom in Germany since the Middle Ages. Synagogues were torched and hundreds of businesses smashed. Shattered glass covered the streets. Women were assaulted and men beaten and murdered. After that terrible night, half the Jews remaining in Germany fled.

To compare a brick tossed through the window of a congressional office and two shouted slurs to Kristallnacht suggests a growing paranoia on the left about the populist right.

Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made “some Americans run off the rails,” said Rich, have we seen anything like this.

Was Rich awake in 1964? Because it wasn’t the right that went off the rails. The really big riot in 1964 was in Harlem, lasting five days, with 500 injured and as many arrested. The Watts riot in 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, Washington, D.C., and 100 other cities in 1968, all bringing troops into American cities, were not the work of George Wallace populists or Barry Goldwater conservatives. They were the work of folks who went “all the way with LBJ.”

Nor was it Young Americans for Freedom that burned ROTC buildings, vandalized professors’ offices, toted the guns at Cornell or took over Columbia in 1968. And it was not the Birchers who set off that 1970 explosion in the Greenwich Village townhouse that killed three radicals and aborted the terrorist bombing of the NCO club at Fort Dix.

No, this was not the New Right. This was the New Left, and it was Obama not John Boehner who used to “pal around” with one of the boys who did the Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombings.

As for calling Barney Frank a naughty name, that is not nice. But one wonders what Rich thought of the students marching under Viet Cong flags chanting, about the man who signed that Civil Rights Act, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” and, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win,” when American boys were dying in the hundreds every week fighting the communist NLF?

The 1967 attack on the Pentagon, where thousands tried to break through military police to get into the building, was the work of left-wing radicals. Did the tea-party folks who chanted, “Kill the bill,” outside the House behave worse than that?

Some of us recall the anarchy of May Day 1971, when 15,000 leftists tried to shut down Washington on a Monday morning by rolling logs onto Canal Road, smashing car windows, blocking traffic circles and wilding in Georgetown. Most wound up behind a chain-link fence at the Armory.

How many were arrested on Capitol Hill Sunday a week ago?

Not one tea partier, man or woman.

The “mass hysteria” of the tea-party right, writes Rich, is at root about race. “By 2012 … non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The tea party is virtually all white. … Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.”

Rich is implying that when America’s white majority disappears, in 2042 according to 2008 Census Bureau projections, the day of the white conservative is over.

Given the rise in ethnic consciousness among all Americans, Rich may be right. But it is not just white folks who want illegal aliens deported and legal immigration curtailed, while 25 million of our own are out of work or underemployed.

A Zogby poll for the Center for Immigration Studies found that 56 percent of Hispanics, 57 percent of Asian-Americans and 68 percent of African-Americans think legal immigration is too high.

If the tea-party folks think it is leftist elites who detest and wish to be rid of the America they grew up in and love, they are right.

Follow Drudge to Losses?

Comments Off on Follow Drudge to Losses?

If this hadn’t been so funny I would have passed it up.  First, I’m posting from Rasmussen who shows Obama at a -13 Approval, 54% disapproval of Healthcare, 64% disapproval of Congress, and 53% who believe Obama Policies will lead to violence.

Now, the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll asked the question “Do you think the health care legislation: (percentage who said “yes”)”

Source: USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,033 adults March 26-28. Margin of error +/- 4 percentage points

Also, respondents to the USA Today poll indicated Obama’s approval rating was 47%-50% — the first time his disapproval rating has hit 50%.  There was also a strong reaction against the tactics Democratic leaders used to pass the bill. A 53% majority call Democratic methods “an abuse of power.”

Now, you’ll see why this story in the Hill is so hilarious:

Matt Drudge and the Republican delusion

By Brent Budowsky – 03/26/10 11:54 AM ET

In my opinion Matt Drudge is the most important and influential single figure in American media. In terms of daily and ongoing influence he is more influential than The New York Times, the television networks, cable news or anyone else.

Let me suggest here that Drudge’s power may turn out to be more of a curse than a blessing for Republicans and conservatives because in my view, it fosters delusions that can lead to defeat. Recently a Gallup poll, of course highlighted on Drudge, found that Obama’s numbers had (then) turned more unfavorable than favorable. This has (now) dramatically changed, unreported by Drudge, with Obama’s favorables now well above his unfavorables. The generic Democratic vote is leading the generic Republican vote in the last Gallup congressional election survey.The healthcare bill has passed and the president’s polls have moved up. Democratic numbers have crept up. Media focus on right-wing death threats is alienating political independents and motivating the Democratic base. But readers of Matt Drudge, listeners to Rush Limbaugh and viewers of Glenn Beck are being fed a false dose of Republican triumphalism and a megaphone for what a majority of voters might see as extremism that is both delusional and politically damaging to Republicans.

Drudge only reports the polls he likes, which gives a warped view of the state of the nation. Limbaugh says he wants opponents “wiped out,” sounding like Michael Corleone and far out of touch with heartland America. Glenn Beck attacks Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA.”

Excuse me? Attacking “Born in the USA”? What a great Republican platform — for Democrats! Where do these delusions come from, and on what planet are these people living?

It is true that countless lazy individuals in media just read Drudge, patronize his propaganda, and parrot his party line like robots. His influence is unquestioned and immense. Let’s give Matt Drudge credit for entrepreneurial drive to have reached this summit of American media. Let’s give a round of boos for progressives with money who never even attempted a meaningful challenge to Drudge.

But my point today is, delusions lead to defeat and Republicans are falling into the trap. Matt Drudge could be an albatross for Republicans who believe their own propaganda, in the same way that Limbaugh and Beck could be true geniuses about promoting themselves for profitability but major dangers to conservatives and Republicans.

Drudge may not report it, but the healthcare bill passing has put the president on the upswing, Democrats lead Republicans in the Gallup poll, the negatives of the healthcare bill are starting to recede, independents are alienated by right-wing extremism, the jobs picture I predict will soon brighten, and the Democratic base is finally being motivated.

Matt Drudge may be the most important and influential figure in American media and journalism, but this may well be a curse for conservatives, not a blessing. Dreams die hard and delusions lose elections.

Let me also add a comment after this story was written on the Hills website:

It s funny to read someone who is a paid political hack of the DNC attacking someone else’s “bias”. Also very funny that Brent has runaway from the race baiting article he wrote prior to this one. We now know that the congressman was NOT spit on, that the “15 instances of the n-word” being used was BS as those congressman had cameras with their posse and there is ZERO evidence. Why does The Hill let a DNC paid political operative write columns, I am truly curious?

Brent what facts are those? Oh where you say that Drudge did not write an article everyday about the latest gallup? Let me ask you, no challenge you to this. Lets see if the Gallup goes negative once again for Obama and you write an article about those numbers! lol We know you wont because the DNC does not pay you for that. BY jon on 03/26/2010 at 15:29

Older Entries