By Devvy Kidd
Judge Roger Vinson's recent decision regarding the unconstitutionality of CommieCare is a victory of sorts. Of course, the usurper in the White House doesn't see it that way:
W.H. charges 'activism' in ruling
"This ruling is well out of the mainstream of judicial opinion," Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to President Obama, wrote on the White House's blog after Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled that the entire law is unconstitutional. "Today's ruling ... is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge's decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act's 'individual responsibility' provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain."
Nothing the judge wrote matters to the putative president, his lackeys and their agenda. Although, I'm sure Obama/Soetoro wishes his own words didn't come back to haunt him - which Judge Vinson included in his decision:
“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her [Hillary Clinton] plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008, appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' television show. “But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody."
Michael Boldin, Executive Director of the Tenth Amendment Center has brought forth an excellent argument against the courts ruling on the issue of health care:
Health Care Ruling: Victory or Trojan Horse?
"While many conservatives laud [the] ruling by U.S. District Judge declaring the federal health care bill passed last year unconstitutional, analysts at the Tenth Amendment Center displayed significantly less enthusiasm, calling the ruling a Trojan Horse.
“According to Vinson – and just about everyone else in the federal judiciary – the federal government actually does have the authority to control, reform, and regulate the health care industry. They're just going about it wrong,” TAC executive director Michael Bolding said. ‘This is seriously dangerous for those who believe that the founders’ Constitution needs to be followed: every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses.’
"As James Madison explained, the commerce clause was intended to make trade “regular” between the states, primarily to prevent interstate tariff wars. Madison wrote:
“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”
"In other words, the framers never envisioned Congress regulating entire industries. The feds are authorized to make commerce in health care across state lines, 'regular' – that's for sure. But this power is far less than anything that's been proposed by either political party in….well, probably about forever,” Boldin said. "The Center's director pointed out a "better option" for those yearning for just a little decentralized freedom. State nullification of the federal health care law – every single word of it, as it should be. In fact, 11 states have bills before their legislatures in an attempt to do just that.”
While I agree with Michael, the problem I see regarding CommieCare is one that can't be done through nullification. The individual mandate requirement Judge Vinson shot down isn't going to be so easy for the states to simply ignore because the clever attorneys who wrote CommieCare for the miscreants in the Democratic Party made sure, just like SS (social security), they tied it to the IRS. Whether or not you ever apply for a Social Security Number (which no one is required to do to live or work in the US), you will be taxed to pay for someone else's retirement under that Ponzi scheme. Involuntary servitude and violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Let's say Texas says no, ObamaCare is null and void in our state. How will a legislature protect the citizens of our state from the IRS coming after them should Judge Vinson's decision be overturned by the U.S. Supreme as everyone feels this issue will go to be decided? Don't say it can't happen. The make up of the court is critical. Stuff happens in life. It would only take one or two of the conservative members retiring due to age, die or have an accident that kills or requires the justice step down to change the game.
As a matter of fact, right now, a watchdog group is pressing for charges: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Appears to Have 'Knowingly and Willfully' Violated Rule of Law for Twenty Years by Falsifying Disclosure Forms. This is a serious investigation that could have huge implications regarding make up of the court.
What does that have to do with the question:
Can a state withdraw from a constitutional amendment?
While nullification can stop much of the tyranny coming out of the Outlaw Congress, it can't get us out of all the destructive trade treaties that have killed millions of jobs, confirmation of federal judges and supreme court justices. Not to mention the unconstitutional bills the U.S. Senate has passed over the decades. For almost 100 years, the U.S. Senate has not represented the interests of the states of the Union as was the original and ONLY intention of the framers of the Constitution for the U.S. Senate:
"James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers No. 45: "The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures." John Jay, co-author of The Federal Papers is quoted: "Jay then informed Governor Clinton that, unlike the Senate, where the two-thirds rule was in force for treaties and impeachment, the lower house had nothing to do with treaties; it represented the people whereas the Senate represented the states – for the Federalists always a significant distinction."
Those duties are the legal territory of U.S. Senators and yes, I'm back to the profound importance of the Seventeenth Amendment. We are faced with a real conundrum here and a constitutional crisis. Many are calling for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. However, that amendment clearly was not ratified by enough states; the proof is on my web site. I stand firm in my opinion that repealing a law that doesn't exist simply puts a new lie on top of the old one. I ask the same question I have for longer than I can remember: Are we a nation of law or lies? Passage of the Seventeenth Amendment was a lie and it should be exposed as such.
The Outlaw Congress will not introduce an amendment to repeal the Seventeenth; you can take money to the bank on that one. I can also tell you the federal courts will kick this one to the curb because I don't believe there's a single federal judge in this country that has the courage to take this on.
So, where does that leave us? Back to the states. While I can't give you a number, I feel confident in saying many states would like to get rid of their counterfeit U.S. Senator - the ones that have sold out their state and our country. I'm not a lawyer, but I want to raise these questions because I believe there are many state reps and senators who would like to take up this issue -- and I believe they would if there was enough of a roar from their constituents.
What are the rights of a state when it comes to a constitutional amendment? What about states that were not in session or who took no action on the amendment? What about their equal suffrage rights in the Senate? Will it be mob rule (democracy) because allegedly enough states ratified (when they did not) so too bad for states like Georgia who took no action and with good reason?
The question was raised by Thomas Jefferson: "Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall its assent to a constitutional amendment (V. 7042)."
Answer: "Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall its assent to a constitutional amendment (V, 7042; footnotes to §§ 225, 234, infra) but has not been the subject of a final judicial determination."
Now, we're back to the courts again. I'm sorry, but the federal judiciary is absolutely broken and corrupt. Yes, a good decision came down to void CommieCare, but judicial activism is rampant; the courts cannot be trusted.
Equal suffrage rights, Article V: ".....Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
An activist here in Texas is determined to bring this issue to the forefront with our state legislature. Unfortunately, Texas is an every other year session. When ours goes out the end of May, they don't return until January 2013. But, what could be more important than restoring a states right when it comes to treaties (that have killed hundreds of thousands or millions of jobs in a state), confirmation of biased, activist judges or supreme court justices who owe their good fortune to a sitting president and unconstitutional bills like the dangerous Food Safety & Modernization Act? All crushing the rights of the states and her citizens courtesy of U.S. Senators who sit in office under an amendment that was not ratified.
Stephen King, founder of the Texas Tea Party has received keen interest from several members of our legislature as well as Tea Party members with the resolution he authored and has been handing out at the capitol. Stephen has indicated to me there is great interest from Tea Party folks he's contacted. That resolution would create a constitutional crisis in the extreme. But, if the courts refuse to address the fraud as well as the Outlaw Congress, what choice do the states have?
How bad do we want to get rid of the Seventeenth Amendment? Bad enough for you to write a snail mail letter with a copy of the resolution and get it to your state rep and senator? Do you or someone you know live close enough to your state house to make copies and deliver them to dozens of office with a short cover letter? How about getting help on this from retired folks who are active? (Copy of the resolution at: http://www.devvy.com/images/pdf/Fraudulent17thAmendment.pdf)
Please feel free to print out this column and include it or copy and paste the historical references to include in your letter. Let your state rep and senator know that proof of non-ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment is on my web site, www.devvy.com. All documents I personally obtained (court certified) at the Library of Congress in Wasington are scanned; the fraud is there for all to see. Get this column to your friends, groups, tea party chapters and let us stand with any state rep or senator who will take up this fight. They must for all the reasons cited. Will you do your part? We can force this to become a major issue, it just takes numbers and follow ups to your letter. Persistence does pay off even though sometimes it seems hopeless.
Links: • Nullification: Answering the Objections by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. • 10 states invoke 1700s 'nullification doctrine' • The "General Welfare" Clause by John W. Bugler • Obamacare and the Individual Mandate: Violating Personal Liberty and Federalism • New CRS Memo Confirms Enforcement of Individual Mandate Penalties Is Destined for Failure
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some party.