Back in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his “Kentucky Resolution,” a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France, that “nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts… is the rightful remedy.”
BOISE, Idaho — After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho’s Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama’s signature bill null and void.
Lawmakers in six other states — Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming — are also mulling “nullification” bills, which contend states, not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter of when Congress and the president run amok.
It’s a concept that’s won favor among many tea party adherents who believe Washington, D.C., is out of control.
Democrats could unintentionally make it easier to repeal the president’s health care reform law if they go ahead with plans to change the filibuster rule, according to senior GOP activists.
The proposal being introduced by New Mexico Democratic Sen. Tom Udall and Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley would end the use of secret holds to block debate in the Senate and would require senators to openly carry on their filibusters on the Senate floor. Other options being discussed in the Democratic caucus include holding a vote to allow a filibuster — instead of a vote to end one — and limiting its use.
“The political advantage of such a change is mixed at best and might even favor the Republicans in the short term,” said Bill Wichterman, who has worked as a top aide to former President George W. Bush and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. “The question is whether this is good for the nation, and that is a decided no.”
(NaturalNews) In response to the recent passage of “food safety” bills S. 510 and corresponding H.R. 2751, the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty has drafted its own resolution called “The Vermont Resolution for Food Sovereignty.” Crafted to declare and protect the food and health freedom rights of all Vermont citizens, the resolution is essentially a warning to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it does not have jurisdiction over the food choices of the People of Vermont.
The resolution declares that food freedom is a “fundamental prerequisite to life,” and that individuals have every right to save seeds, grow what they wish, and buy and sell the fruits of their labor without interference from an over-zealous, tyrannical government. And if any federal official tries to infringe on these rights, the People “shall resist any and all” of them.
The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It’s the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.
“Death panels” received renewed interest over the Christmas season in a New York Times piece by Robert Pear, “Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir.” The story outlines a new 691-page regulation that to puts into place end-of-life counseling, called “advanced care planning,” via the Medicare program.
The regulation is provided for “in the case where an injury or illness causes the individual to be unable to make health care decisions”. This is essentially a living will where the patient and the doctor would come to a determination about what to do if a patient became incapacitated. This provision was originally removed in the Senate version of the bill after public outcry emerged, spearheaded by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
That it has reappeared in regulation after being rejected by Congress is troubling, and has renewed worries that such “counseling” could be utilized to coerce seniors into foregoing life-sustaining treatments. That is certainly cause for concern, but may only be the tip of the iceberg for “death panels”.
Enacted into Section 3403 of ObamaCare was the Independent Payments Advisory Board, an entity whose express responsibility is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending”.
The whole purpose of this panel is to diminish the amount of money spent on a per beneficiary basis. To hide that, the bill states that “The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care…or otherwise restricts benefits” or restrict eligibility of citizens to access Medicare. This is slightly misleading. The panel is authorized to make near-binding recommendations on Congress to restrict the growth of Medicare spending per individual.
A study in the journal “Pediatrics” found that babies who were mainly breast-fed for the first six months of life or longer, scored higher academically when they got older, than children who were not breastfed or breastfed over a shorter length of time.
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between duration of breast-feeding and educational outcomes.
Colostrum is the thick yellow first breast milk that you make during pregnancy and just after birth. This milk is very rich in nutrients and antibodies that protect your baby.
The American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization recommend breastfeeding for babies. Health experts claim breastfeeding helps defend against infections, prevent allergies, and protect against a number of chronic conditions.
It’s that time of year, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is in the giving spirit.
In this case, the “gift” is an exemption from the health-care law the President signed earlier this year. Over the past few months, Secretary Sebelius has given more than 200 companies and unions waivers from provisions of the new law. The specific criteria required for obtaining a waiver aren’t clear.
Without these waivers, companies had warned that they might have to drop health coverage they provide to some of their employees. McDonald’s, which received one of the first waivers, had warned that 30,000 employees could lose their current coverage. The employees have so-called “mini-med” plans, which have a low cost and cap annual benefits. According to the Wall Street Journal, about 1.4 million Americans have these plans.
For employees of companies that offer mini-med plans, the waivers are welcome. These workers will get to keep the health coverage they currently have. According to a memo from McDonald’s obtained by the Wall Street Journal, many employees who stood to lose their coverage would be left “without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014.” So, without these waivers, those employees may have not had any coverage at all for three years. Continue reading “ObamaCare Waivers” »
Grenade throwers who disliked a Virginia district court judge’s ruling for the state in its suit against the federal government’s health care law are trying to create controversy about the judge where none exists, Virginia’s attorney general said Sunday.
Attorney General Ken Cucinnelli said some “lefty blogs” are trying to stir up discord over an alleged conflict of interest by Judge Henry E. Hudson, who ruled last week that the individual mandate in President Obama’s signature domestic initiative is unconstitutional.
Shortly after Hudson delivered his ruling last week, critics called into question Hudson’s impartiality since Hudson is a partial owner of Campaign Solutions, a political consulting company that Cucinnelli hired during his 2009 attorney general bid.
“That grenade came over the wall for some lefty blogs hours after the judge ruled that the United States couldn’t get our case dismissed, well that’s shocking timing on that,” Cucinnelli told Fox News.
If you really want to fix health care, I propose these three things: (1) repeal ObamaScare, (2) DON’T replace it with the Republicans’ plan, and (3) pass massive TORT reform. True lowering of health care costs won’t happen until you get lawyers out of the health care industry. Health care costs also won’t be contained until we bridle the onerous cost cutting measures of insurance companies that interfere with the patient/doctor relationship. I’m not adverse to legitimate malpractice and negligence claims. I do oppose the “get rich at others’ expense” mentality that permeates our legal industry today.
I question whether bringing these challenges in the U.S. District Court system is really constitutional. Article III §2 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution clearly says that all cases in which a state may be a party have ORIGINAL jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the states were the sovereigns. Under Article III the states retained the vast rights they had regarding being sued and to sue. Through Article III, the states consented to being sued in the U.S. Supreme Court and only in the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, I believe the language in Article III is plain and unambiguous, needing no interpretation.
No federal courts inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court were given “subject matter jurisdiction” over the States. Without subject matter jurisdiction, a court has absolutely no authority to act on a case, and any action the court takes is absolutely null and void from inception. (The same is true regarding laws passed in contravention of the Constitution and for the same reason.) This authority may not be taken by the court itself and the parties cannot consent or otherwise give the court this authority. The court either has it or it does not, period. The federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the states.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal judge declared the Obama administration’s health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia’s attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.
Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law’s requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.
Hudson, a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state’s case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.
For health care reform watchers, all eyes are on Virginia today. Judge Henry Hudson will issue a ruling midday in Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform law.
The Virginia lawsuit is one of the most significant of the more than 20 federal court cases that have been brought against the new law. Most of those cases argue that Congress overstepped its bounds in passing the “individual mandate” — the portion of the law that will require nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014. The Obama administration has argued that the individual mandate is within Congress’ authority.
May 22, 2012 1813 Richard Wagner 1931 Kenny Ball 1950 Bernie Taupin 1859 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 1938 Susan Strasberg 1959 Morrissey 1907 Lord Laurence Olivier 1946 George Best 1970 Naomi Campbell
Have a question concerning the Constitution and your rights? You can try our U.S. Succinct Court Office.. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS and we CANNOT GIVE ADVISE on any case that may be pending for or against you. We can, however, provide links to resources that might answer your questions. Feel free to use our Contact Form.
The Constitutional Republic Party web site is NOT a non-profit organization for tax purposes. We do not provide candidates for office, but we support candidates with Constitutional views. Our current purpose is to provide education about the true purpose of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historic documents. We do provide information and news which may have an impact on your Constitutional rights.
We will publish almost any, intelligent articles and opinions that do not contain cursing and do not advocate physical violence against an individual or group of individuals---even if they are belligerent. Those opinions expressed and comments in reply to such opinions are solely those of the authors.
Loading ...
