38 states might legislate against the Socialized Medicine act?

[Little-Acorn]

I keep hearing that as many as 38 states are preparing legislation banning the new Socialized Medicine act from their borders. Who can blame them? An unconstitutional law is no law at all.

But 38 is an interesting number. It's slightly more than 3/4 of the states. Where have we heard that number before? At least, those of us who have read and understood the Constitution?

That document says that Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution itself, by passing them with a 2/3 majority of each house. Then the proposals go to the states, where 3/4 of them must ratify them to make them stick.

Anybody think the present Congress will muster 2/3 majorites to repeal Socialized Medicine? (snicker)

But,, that antique document also says that's not the only way to get amendments proposed. 2/3 of the STATES can also call for a national Constitutional Convention... and if they do, Congress MUST call one, whether it likes it or not. And that ConCon can propose any amendments it likes... again, whether ANY part of the Fed govt likes it or not.

A ConCon could be an interesting development, especially if spawned by this Health Care travesty.

A ConCon, of course, cannot modify the Constitution by itself. All it can do is propose amendments, just as Congress can propose them with 2/3 majorities of each house.

Any amendment that comes from a ConCon (or from Congress) must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it goes in the trash can. But if the 38 we keep hearing about would like to put their money where their mouth is, this could get interesting.

And there is NO LIMIT to what a ConCon can propose. If 38 states see fit to ratify, then it (and they) can make ANY law they want. These 37 or so, seem to be in an anti-Federal mood... which, all things considered, isn't a bad idea nowadays. How about an amendment that declares the EPA, OSHA, etc. edicts to be null and void in any state that has not given explicit agreement to them? Or even an amendment that simply dissolves those agencies... and others?

The amendment process was deliberately designed to give the highest office in the land (the Presidency) NO voice in any amendment, either proposal or ratification. The entire country was based on the notion that the people, far removed from government, were the best arbiters of their own lives AND the running of the country. For that reason, the Framers even provided a means of amending the Supreme Law of the Land that completely cuts out ALL of the Federal government: States can call a national ConCon to propose amendment, following which the States can then ratify what they proposed... and if the Fed Govt they just modified, doesn't like it, too bad.

Liberals in the Fed govt (in both parties) have been ignoring and violating Constitutional provisions for decades - and just added to the total today. If they start trying to ignore or violate the purely-state-based amendment process too... we could have a real problem.

Of course, the idea of States unilaterally exercising supreme power like that, flies in the face of everything those far-left liberals hold holy. If the Federal government thinks it's a good idea to take the choice out of our hands of whether to buy health insurance, is it beyond consideration that they might think it's an equally good idea to take the choice out of our hands, how to modify the Fed Govt itself, particularly if those liberals don't like the proposed changes? Either act is equally a violation of the Constitution... and they've already done one of them.

[CSM]

I keep hearing that as many as 38 states are preparing legislation banning the new Socialized Medicine act from their borders. Who can blame them? An unconstitutional law is no law at all.

But 38 is an interesting number. It's slightly more than 3/4 of the states. Where have we heard that number before? At least, those of us who have read and understood the Constitution?

That document says that Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution itself, by passing them with a 2/3 majority of each house. Then the proposals go to the states, where 3/4 of them must ratify them to make them stick.

Anybody think the present Congress will muster 2/3 majorites to repeal Socialized Medicine? (snicker)

But,, that antique document also says that's not the only way to get amendments proposed. 2/3 of the STATES can also call for a national Constitutional Convention... and if they do, Congress MUST call one, whether it likes it or not. And that ConCon can propose any amendments it likes... again, whether ANY part of the Fed govt likes it or not.

A ConCon could be an interesting development, especially if spawned by this Health Care travesty.

A ConCon, of course, cannot modify the Constitution by itself. All it can do is propose amendments, just as Congress can propose them with 2/3 majorities of each house.

Any amendment that comes from a ConCon (or from Congress) must still be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it goes in the trash can. But if the 38 we keep hearing about would like to put their money where their mouth is, this could get interesting.

And there is NO LIMIT to what a ConCon can propose. If 38 states see fit to ratify, then it (and they) can make ANY law they want. These 37 or so, seem to be in an anti-Federal mood... which, all things considered, isn't a bad idea nowadays. How about an amendment that declares the EPA, OSHA, etc. edicts to be null and void in any state that has not given explicit agreement to them? Or even an amendment that simply dissolves those agencies... and others?

The amendment process was deliberately designed to give the highest office in the land (the Presidency) NO voice in any amendment, either proposal or ratification. The entire country was based on the notion that the people, far removed from government, were the best arbiters of their own lives AND the running of the country. For that reason, the Framers even provided a means of amending the Supreme Law of the Land that completely cuts out ALL of the Federal government: States can call a national ConCon to propose amendment, following which the States can then ratify what they proposed... and if the Fed Govt they just modified, doesn't like it, too bad.

Liberals in the Fed govt (in both parties) have been ignoring and violating Constitutional provisions for decades - and just added to the total today. If they start trying to ignore or violate the purely-state-based amendment process too... we could have a real problem.

Of course, the idea of States unilaterally exercising supreme power like that, flies in the face of everything those far-left liberals hold holy. If the Federal government thinks it's a good idea to take the choice out of our hands of whether to buy health insurance, is it beyond consideration that they might think it's an equally good idea to take the choice out of our hands, how to modify the Fed Govt itself, particularly if those liberals don't like the proposed changes? Either act is equally a violation of the Constitution... and they've already done one of them.

I doubt seriously that any federal politician even considered this as a possibility, especially given their ignorance of the Constitution in the first place.

[HogTrash]

Damn...I was hoping all 58 states would join in.

[Little-Acorn]

I doubt seriously that any federal politician even considered this as a possibility, especially given their ignorance of the Constitution in the first place.

Which just serves to illustrate the Framers' wisdom in providing an amendment method that COMPLETELY CUTS OUT any participation by the Federal government.

We may yet owe those old wig-wearing dead guys more gratitude than we ever imagined.....

[CSM]

Which just serves to illustrate the Framers' wisdom in providing an amendment method that COMPLETELY CUTS OUT any participation by the Federal government.

We may yet owe those old wig-wearing dead guys more gratitude than we ever imagined.....

Those guys were pretty crafty and obviously were fully aware of how despots and tyranny can come to power! We here about checks and balances in the government all the time but seldom here about THIS little "inconvenient truth"!

[Bonnie]

[quote=Little-Acorn;417304]Which just serves to illustrate the Framers' wisdom in providing an amendment method that COMPLETELY CUTS OUT any participation by the Federal government.

We may yet owe those old wig-wearing dead guys more gratitude than we ever imagined.....[/quote


Is NJ one of them? I remember a few months ago Texans were talking secession from the fed govt....maybe that's not such a bad idea after all. Imagine a country where each state has a balanced budget.... even a surplice possibly. Do we dare dream:coffee:?

[namvet]

Massive State-Level Revolt Brewing Against Obamacare

According to the bipartisan NCSL association, as of March the states filing formal resolutions or bills include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/states-lawsuits-health-care/2010/03/18/id/353220

[Insein]

WOOHOO! PA is on the list.

[red states rule]

Listen to how MSNBC is "reporting" on this story

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdkU4znzkU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdkU4znzkU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[namvet]

so far 13 states have filed law suits against it.

[Binky]

Damn...I was hoping all 58 states would join in.


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Right on target with that number, aren't you Hog?

[Gaffer]

The Civil War was about states rights and its coming to a head again. And once again the federal government is trying to control everything. This time its a lot more than 11 states, the feds will get majorly slapped down if they continue to push. And msnbc is a full blown propaganda machine on the order of the soviet tass.

[Binky]

Massive State-Level Revolt Brewing Against Obamacare

According to the bipartisan NCSL association, as of March the states filing formal resolutions or bills include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/states-lawsuits-health-care/2010/03/18/id/353220


That's 32 states....interesting....maybe this is the revolution that's been in the making.

[Monkeybone]

Listen to how MSNBC is "reporting" on this story

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdkU4znzkU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdkU4znzkU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

wow... she is an idiot. It didn't "establish" that. They just won so they "got" to establish that. and if you really wanna get into it, it was an illegal war anyways, mostly because Lincoln didn't think that then was the right time for the Country to seperate. but that is for another time.

and was i mistaken or did they say it was about Race in the start of that?

[namvet]

That's 32 states....interesting....maybe this is the revolution that's been in the making.

if we lose mid term we may very well see it.

[Binky]

if we lose mid term we may very well see it.


Well, we can't say we haven't seen it coming. Or at least I can't.....

[namvet]

Well, we can't say we haven't seen it coming. Or at least I can't.....

I knew Osama was astroturf from the get go. now he's bit off more than we can chew.

[namvet]

now 14 states join the law suit

In addition to Florida, participating plaintiffs in the lawsuit include attorneys general from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington State, Idaho, and South Dakota, Virginia .

[KarlMarx]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Right on target with that number, aren't you Hog?
Maybe he was including 8 Mexican provinces in that number... the way things are going with Obama giving legal status to illegals, we may as well include 8 Mexican provinces ...

then there's the climate change bill.. we probably will have to give full rights to polar bears, too

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/37148

This is a liberal or left leaning article, but there are some interesting points that must be heard on the conservative side.

2 points, in particular:


Just take a look at the law suit that 13 State Attorneys General (edit...now 14 states) have filed against the Health Care Reform legislation. It rest on two arguments, both of them aimed squarely at the Constitution. The first is a 10th Amendment argument, which claims the individual mandate, infringes on the sovereignty of the States. This argument is the same one that crazed secessionist fantasies spring from.

The premise here is that the Federal Government is taking new rights for itself and that since the 10th Amendment gives all rights not claimed by the Federal Government to the States this is unconstitutional. This is a complete misreading of the Constitution. While the States do have all the rights not claimed by the Federal Government, when it does claim new rights (either through Constitutional amendments or legislation) the supremacy clause trumps the states.


The other argument the 13 AG’s are making is that the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. This is probably not going to go anywhere either. The reason is not in the Constitution but in the case law that has sprung up over the last 200 years.

Various Supreme Courts have ruled on the application of the Commerce Clause that allows the Congress to regulate commerce that crosses State lines and affects the nation’s economy as a whole. It has been interpreted, time and again, as being quite sweeping. Given the fact that health care, as our Republican friends have told us ad infinitum, is about 1/6 of the nations spending there is very little doubt it meets those tests.

The AG’s are resting their argument on the requirement of purchase, but that is not what is going to be argued. As Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out last night on Countdown the implementation of the mandate is in the form of a tax credit. If you have insurance you get the credit, if you do not, then you have to pay the taxes the credit does not wipe out.

It is long established that the Federal Government can tax the people of the United States and provide incentives to behaviors in the form of tax credits. This is no different. If you want to keep your taxes as low as possible, then you will have or buy health insurance. Any citizen can choose not to do so, but there will be a monetary cost. In this way it is the same as choosing not to buy a house. The deduction for interest on a mortgage is an incentive to home ownership, but it is not a requirement that everyone buy homes.

Sounds pretty reasonable, with regard to its logic, based on The Constitution. Not that I like it, but it does sound like VOTING is our best best for REAL change.....

[Kathianne]

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/37148

This is a liberal or left leaning article, but there are some interesting points that must be heard on the conservative side.

2 points, in particular:





Sounds pretty reasonable, with regard to its logic, based on The Constitution. Not that I like it, but it does sound like VOTING is our best best for REAL change.....

I don't think the constitutional argument is going to win out, unless SCOTUS really is pissed at Obama, which is possible. ;)

I think there's much more hope for a possible state called constitutional convention to add an amendment. Whether it would get done is a long shot, it's not even been tried before.