A new Gallup poll reports that President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped below 50 percent for the first time since his inauguration. Respondents in that poll indicated that the healthcare law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that the President signed on March 23 amid praise and proclamations is just too costly.
There’s no denying that anything costing nearly $1 trillion is “too costly.” Another more personal reason for Obama’s plummeting popular support may be the amnesia he’s suffered since getting the keys to the White House. During his campaign, then-Senator Obama repeatedly promised the American middle class that he would never raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 and on individuals earning less than $200,000. The healthcare bill signed into law by President Obama contains at least seven tax increases on the segment of our population that he promised to protect. Don’t blame President Obama, though. This sort of short-term memory loss is a common symptom of those suffering from Potomac Fever.
Among the most notable taxes ObamaCare places on the backs of the working middle class is the individual mandate. Simply stated, under the provisions of the new law, if by 2014 every individual legally residing in America has not purchased a qualifying health insurance policy, then he is subject to a tax penalty. There is no wiggle room on that one. No matter your age, income, or how much you believed in his promises, President Obama’s healthcare “reform” forces you to purchase a commodity whether you like it or not.
Another less apparent aspect of the insidious tax increases that will undoubtedly devolve upon the middle class is the class of indirect taxes that the law imposes on the healthcare sector (the sixth largest industry in the American economy, mind you). These taxes, as with most other increases in overhead, will surely be passed on to consumers, thus representing a stealth tax increase.
Other new healthcare taxes are not so hidden, however. When adding up all the new taxes and penalties written into the new law, the bottom line reveals that most of that money will be paid by those individuals earning $200,000 and families earning $250,000. Just so no one feels left out, however, there are plenty of tax hikes especially targeted to every American, regardless of income.
The individual mandate that I referenced above requires that every person legally present in the United States (yes, that said “legally” present in the United States. Do I need to explain what that means for illegals? All the benefits and none of the penalties) must buy an approved healthcare insurance policy. Failure to comply will result in a penalty of 2.5 percent of the offender’s income or $695, depending on whether the person makes more or less than $30,000 a year.
Never fear, small business owner. President Obama is spreading the mandate love around, and you will get a heaping handful! According to Section 1513 of the Act (euphemistically entitled “Shared Responsibility for Employers”), any business (including small businesses with revenue less than $250,000 a year) must provide health insurance options to their employees or face fines and penalties. If the employer does not make a qualifying health insurance policy available to its employees, then they will be assessed a penalty (tax) of $750 per full-time employee. The tax is reduced slightly if employers do offer health insurance but make their employees cross a threshold probation period before it kicks in (30-60 day waiting period = $400/employee tax; 60+ day waiting period = $600/employee tax). Don’t delay, small business owners! It’s not just the money you earn that will be taxed under the President’s pet plan, however. Savings accounts are in the crosshairs, as well. Under the PPACA, pre-tax money from health savings accounts, flexible savings accounts, or health reimbursement accounts may not be used to buy over-the-counter medicine. All the money saved in this account will be taxed heavily if used to purchase any medicine other than that prescribed by a doctor or insulin.
Furthermore, any money withdrawn from any of these accounts for a non-medical purpose will be subject to a 20-percent tax. That’s up from 10 percent before the law goes into effect in 2011. Also, whereas now a person can deposit as much money as he deems necessary and prudent into a flexible spending account, beginning in 2011 a $2,500 cap is imposed. Proponents of this scheme claim that the “no over-the-counter tax” and the doubling of the non-medical withdrawal tax, combined, will generate about $15 billion in revenue. Well, I’m sure that’s another promise we can count on.
Even if such taxes and penalties did raise revenue, they are still unconstitutional. There is no authorization in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution for Congress to legislate in the healthcare arena.
Next, there is the so-called “Caucasian Tax.” Next time you visit the tanning salon, you’d better leave your wallet in the car. Under Section 10907 of the ObamaCare law, there is a new 10-percent excise tax on the use of indoor tanning booths. While this new tax might keep you from turning a golden brown, perhaps you’ll make do with the flaming red color you get from being so angry!
Finally, as the law stands today, a person may deduct any medical expense that exceeds 7.5 percent of his adjusted gross income. Beginning in 2013, however, that threshold rises to 10 percent of adjusted gross income, thereby eliminating the tax break for many Americans paying enormous medical bills. That is to say, fewer Americans who truly rely on medical care to the point of paying thousands of dollars a year will be able to offset those expenditures by claiming a deduction.
There are numerous other taxes, penalties, excises, and fees buried in the over 2,000 page law signed last month by President Obama. People earning over $200,000 and families earning over $250,000 are taxed even more heavily under the PPACA. Payroll taxes on those individuals, for example, increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent under the law, and the tax on investment income over that amount increases to 3.8 percent. Of course, to President Obama such people are rich and can afford to shoulder the burden of redistribution. See, middle class? You don’t get all the fun!
So, you see, under ObamaCare, everyone will have to buy a health insurance policy or have it bought for him by his employer. Naturally, either way, one’s wages are reduced and his ability to save or spend is reduced proportionately. Moreover, the various savings disincentives contained in the bill don’t make saving the little money most have left over every month much of an attractive option anyway.
Remember, while it was worthwhile to examine the multitude of taxes and penalties promulgated under ObamaCare, it is more important to recognize that every one of the more than 2,000 pages of this law became law notwithstanding the lack of constitutional authority of Congress or the President to do so. As Americans, we recognize that any reduction in wages is effectively a tax as it is caused by a government mandate. We must assert our natural sovereignty and demand that the law be repealed or, even better, demand that our state legislatures pass laws nullifying its effect. This law is unconstitutional in several signal ways (see the previous article in this series) and the only valid response at this point is to compel our elected representatives to honor the oath they took to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Other installments in this series: Obamacare: An Introduction Obamacare and the Commerce Clause, The States Respond to ObamaCare
Families have good reason to be concerned about how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010[1] will affect them. While the law will deliver a health insurance entitlement to millions of individuals and families, many of its provisions weaken family choice of coverage, undermine parental participation in minor children’s health care decisions, penalize the decision to marry, and undercut family values in health care.
More Families Covered but Less Family Choice
Millions of families gain an entitlement to health insurance under the mandates on individuals and employers in PPACA. The law’s creation of new affordability tax credits will ease the purchase of health insurance for middle-income Americans.
But the new credits go hand in hand with increased regulation of private health plans. Moreover, families gained nothing from PPACA that will permit them to purchase better or cheaper plans across state lines.[2] The new law also does nothing to increase the variety of insurance available in the market, which could include family-friendly options like health plans managed by professional associations, unions, and faith-based groups. Nor will families be able to purchase health plans that exclude coverage for services to which they ethically object or which they do not need.
Undermining the Role of Parents
PPACA expands several funding streams that undermine parental responsibility and authority to direct the upbringing of their children. The law lavishes federal dollars on programs like school-based health centers and a new “Personal Responsibility Education” (PRE)[3] program that deny parents knowledge of sensitive services their children receive in federally funded projects.
First, PPACA creates a new $50 million per year appropriation for school-based health centers, many of which either offer contraception on site or refer for contraception and even abortion. The law states that the recipient clinics must honor “parental consent and notification laws that are not inconsistent with Federal law.”[4] However, the federal Medicaid and Title X (Public Health Service Act) laws stipulate that the confidentiality of teens obtaining services must be respected, nullifying any state or local parental notice or consent policies.[5]
Second, the new PRE program provides $75 million per year for grants to help states reduce pregnancies and births to teenagers. Unlike the 1996 welfare reform, however, the new program does not incentivize states to reach these goals without increasing their abortion rates.
Another disturbing feature of PPACA is the fact that it imposes—across a broad range of income and age—significant financial penalties on the decision to marry.
The marriage penalty imposed by the law could exceed $10,000 per year for certain couples.[6] This is because the affordability tax credit phases out rapidly as income rises.
Not only does this health insurance marriage penalty dissuade a younger, low-income couple from getting married—which is one of the most beneficial life decisions they can make for themselves and for their children—but it also provides older couples, some of the hardest hit by this law, with an incentive to obtain a “divorce of convenience.”
For example, a 60-year-old couple, each with an income of $15,000 per year and purchasing insurance in the non-group market, would gain $4,212 in tax savings if they obtained a sham divorce and bought insurance separately. A similar couple, each making $30,000, per year would realize $10,425 in tax savings if they divorce and cohabit rather than remain married.
Undercutting Freedom of Conscience
As health care reform proceeded, strong majorities of Americans supported protecting provider and insurer rights of conscience as well as limiting the use of tax funds for abortion. In March 2009, 87 percent of respondents to a national poll supported ensuring “that healthcare professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.”[7] A January 2010 Quinnipiac Survey found that 67 percent of Americans oppose public funding of abortion.[8]
Conscience Protections. PPACA does make clear that no qualified health care plan can be required to cover abortion as an “essential” benefit. It also ensures that no health care plan that participates in the state-based exchanges may discriminate against a health care facility or provider because of its unwillingness “to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortion.”[9]
The law does not, however, prevent the federal and state governments from practicing this same discrimination. An effort to add such an amendment to the bill failed in a Senate committee in September 2009. While there is an annual appropriations rider to this effect on the bill funding the Department of Health and Human Services, it lacks permanent force, and regulations to implement it were suspended by President Obama in March 2009 as a step toward its likely rescission.
Abortion Funding. Currently, every health care plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program may not as a matter of law include coverage of elective abortion. Under PPACA, health care plans that cover elective abortion may participate in the state-based exchanges provided they require each enrollee to pay a separate premium of not less than $12 per year for elective abortion coverage.[10]
The Executive Order. On March 24, President Obama signed an executive order that attempts to apply conscience protections and abortion funding limits to the full text of PPACA. Regardless of the order’s intent, judicial rulings for the past 35 years have made it clear that public funding of elective abortions in federal programs cannot be barred without the kind of direct ban that Congress failed to include in many parts of PPACA.[11]
Reason for Disappointment
Advocates of family values in health care reform have reason to be deeply disappointed with the overall impact of PPACA. The passage of legislation that increases parental control and choice regarding health care insurance, avoids marriage penalties, guarantees conscience protections, and limits taxpayer support for controversial practices like abortion must await a future Congress.
Chuck Donovan is Senior Research Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. It’s called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
Think of this relationship as an ideal marriage, where neither partner is subservient to the other. The duties in a relationship are gradually assigned to one partner or the other. Neither feels beneath the other, rather they are a team.
Though this was the ideal, the Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington articulated this when he warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure that this fire does not spread too far and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire under control. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which outlines all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. The States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” in the nineties because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? “Brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed Federal Government refrained from their natural inclination to take more power, health care reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states have tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area. Instead they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all. Of course, this would have necessitated an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60 % of the people did not want this bill, the Constitution would have protected us from the federal government’s ineptitude.
Arm yourself with knowledge. Study and understand the Constitution so you can participate in informed discussion among those with whom you come in contact. Expect your Senators and Congressmen to understand it as well, and bear this in mind when you go to the polls. We must be active now before the fire of government takes over our states, our homes, and our lives.
“I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind – yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?” – Dr. Hendricks, from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, 1957–
As the national furor over ObamaCare continues to rage unabated, Dr. Cassell, a Mount Dora, Fla., urologist, has thrown another log onto the fire:
“A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients…’If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.’” (“Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care,” Orlando Sentinel, Apr. 2.)
And, for those who choose to walk into the good doctor’s waiting room anyway, “Cassell also has provided his patients with photocopies of a health-care timeline produced by Republican leaders that outlines ‘major provisions’ in the health-care package. The doctor put a sign above thestack of copies that reads: ‘This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it.’”
With statements such as these, as you might imagine, Dr. Cassell has become the center of a firestorm all his own. And what is illuminating about this controversy is not that a doctor is standing up in opposition to impending government-imposed health-care serfdom (something that should have been expected by anyone with enough brains to tie their shoes)–but the nature of the vitriol being leveled against him for doing so.
Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida’s 8th district, for instance, described Cassell’s stand as “ridiculous.”
“I’m disgusted,’ he said. ‘Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, Do no good. If this is the face of the right wing in America, it’s the face of cruelty…Why don’t they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?”
So: if you, as a doctor, have decided that you are opposed to having your profession enslaved by a bunch of “do-good” bureaucrats who in reality are not “doing good” at all, but inflicting irreparable harm on your industry – and if you, as a doctor, have decided that you would prefer not to treat those who view you as a slave to social need, where your thoughts and desires mean nothing and you are not entitled to have any opinions of your own – and if you, as a doctor, have decided that your conscience demands that you protest the enforcement, in violation of your right to engage in free trade, of such policies by posting a sign in your office window–then you, as a doctor, are nothing but a “disgusting sore loser” intending to inflict “cruelty” on those around you.
And if that kind of an attack – which, after all, is Mr. Grayson’s right to make under the 1st Amendment (same as Dr. Cassell’s right to post his sign) – doesn’t make the message against the medical slaves getting uppity perfectly clear, Mr. Grayson has no intention of stopping there.
“He’s licensed,’ Grayson said. ‘There are licensing authorities who will look into what he’s doing, and I hope that they’ll take action…” (“Doctor: If you voted for Obama, seek care elsewhere,” cfsnews13.com, Apr. 3.)
Translation: not content with spewing his hatred of liberty and individualism all over the news and Internet, Grayson now intends on reaching for a government gun to ban Dr. Cassell from his chosen profession.
And here we see the phony window-dressing of doctor licensing as a supposed “guarantee” of medical ability stripped away and revealed for all to see, as just another coercive power mechanism to guarantee compliance: “You’ll do it our way, or we’ll outlaw you.”
If you are a doctor, isn’t the lesson clear? Toe the party line or be crucified. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is being offered to you in the name of “doing good” and love for humankind. You might want to seriously think about taking up ditch-digging or basket-weaving instead.
And, when all of you independent-minded doctors decide that your chosen profession of medicine is no longer conducive to rewards, ability, rationality or free enterprise, and you leave the field in droves, the million-dollar question becomes: where do the rest of us think we are going to get any meaningful health care?
Good thing we have Obama’s “Intelligence Czar,” Dennis Blair, to bring clarity to the debate of who the enemy actually is. The phrase “global war on terror” (GWOT), which probably makes the top ten phrases over-used by President George Bush, has been buried next to the soldiers who died in the name of the global war on terror. Now we are “countering violent extremism.”
Could the unelected Mr. Intelligence Czar please define “violent extremism”? Nancy Pelosi made it pretty clear that she thinks violent extremism could be when someone’s “language” might create a “climate in which “violence [takes] place.” She also suggests that they should be held accountable when any violence follows their speech, no matter how indirectly related the source of the violence is to the person who dared to exercise their first amendment rights. In other words, when you speak out about an administration’s policies and some quack who is hulled up in his basement all day sharpening knives and building bombs comes after the president, in Pelosi Land, you are responsible for that man’s actions. Would you then be labeled a “violent extremist” who needs to be “countered”?
The other question that remains is, why the change in terminology? The phrase “global war on terror” suggests the threat is on the outside. Somehow this new terminology brings it right into our own backyard. Considering the ambiguous language used in defining a “homegrown terrorist” in the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1955), it is disturbing to think just who might fall under this category, and for what purpose.
This could be a war on dissension, or it could just be an innocuous change in terminology; but I doubt the Founding Fathers would want us to wait around and take the chance that it might be the former.
I often hear people on the Left accuse the defenders of capitalism of wanting completely unregulated markets, in which helpless citizens will be stripped of all legal protection, and placed at the mercy of rapacious bankers and businessmen. This is a straw man of such towering size that Nicholas Cage can be glimpsed inside its head, holding his broken legs and howling for his agent to land him a part in a better movie.
There are other choices besides anarchy, or a regulatory State that directly controls over half of our economy. Far from opposing all regulation, I maintain that clearly written, honestly enforced, minimally intrusive laws are both just and essential for wealth creation. A nation’s wealth lies in transactions between its citizens, and the pace of those transactions would be greatly reduced if consumers had no confidence in providers. Shopping malls would be considerably less active, if the shoppers had to assume every food product was potentially poisonous, every piece of consumer electronics could explode, and all of the merchants were thieves.
Clearly written and honestly enforced regulation is not easy to come by, these days. To understand why, imagine that two football teams assemble for a game, under the supervision of a single referee.
As the first play begins, one of the players complains that the referee has made illegal movements across the field. The referee laughs and explains he cannot be bound by the same rules that constrain the players, or he wouldn’t be able to do his job properly. He must be able to move up and down the field at will, in ways that would earn penalties for the players. Common sense supports his assertion, and the game continues.
The referee begins calling all sorts of penalties, invoking rules he has created on the fly. The players object, saying the rulebook accepted at the beginning of the game should be used without alterations. The referee mocks this notion. The field has grass, but the rulebook was written for a dirt field. It’s cold outside, and there have been some snow flurries. The game will continue into the night, under electric lights. The teams include players of different sizes and fitness levels. More complex rules are needed to ensure a good game!
By the end of the first quarter, the ref announces it’s too hard for him to administer such complex rules by himself. He begins pulling players off the teams, and deputizing them as assistant referees.
Early in the second quarter, the home team begins complaining of unfair calls, made in favor of the visiting team. To their astonishment, the referees actually begin tackling home team players, intercepting passes, and running touchdowns! The chief official explains that he felt the visiting team was outmatched, and had little chance of winning on its own, so he decided to make things “fair.” The home team is particularly upset that the biased referees retain all their special advantages – they can move around the field at will, and ignore the play clock. The chief official dismisses these complaints, assuring everyone his actions will enhance the “competition.”
The spectators are initially amused by the wild spectacle of referees tackling players, but the game quickly becomes boring. The home team becomes so confused and demoralized that their players begin to leave the field.
After the final whistle, the chief official is seen collecting money from a shady character near the locker room. It turns out the official had bet heavily on the outmatched visiting team. He had a financial interest in the outcome of the game all along… and he’s the only real “winner.”
Like the referees of a football game, the government must remain completely outside the markets it regulates. Contrary to the absurd sales pitch for ObamaCare, the State cannot enter the health insurance market as a “competitor.” It shouldn’t develop interests that will sour its regulatory powers into corruption.
By its very nature, government has access to power and resources which no private enterprise can equal. It can’t work any other way. We can’t treat the military as a business enterprise, to be shut down if it doesn’t rake in sufficient profits. We must have government resources to address disasters, and most citizens would insist the government be provided with funds to care for the desperately poor and sick. Those who enforce the law must have a measure of power beyond the law: sky marshals carry guns onto airplanes, soldiers have access to heavy weapons and high explosives, government auditors can demand access to information a business would never share with its competition.
To be trusted with such power and resources, the State must practice strict adherence to a basic set of laws which constrain its behavior, and which it cannot easily disregard or change. The rulebook for the American game is her Constitution. Fidelity to those rules would produce a small State with less influence to satisfy the appetite of hyper-competitive players who wish to cheat at the game… or its own appetite for purchasing votes and imposing its ideas of “fairness.” Disdain for the Constitution has led us to the present spectacle of referees who outnumber the players, unemployed players sitting dejectedly on the sidelines, and a dwindling number of investors willing to bet on a rigged game that will be decided by the whims of the officials.
The idea of a large, and yet scrupulously honest State is fraudulent to its core. As the State expands in size, it inevitablydevelops interests that lead to corruption. Its power becomes so valuable that bribery is an everyday transaction, camouflaged in sanctimonious rhetoric. Taking responsibility for errors and wrongdoing will always be less attractive than dipping into the public treasury for a few billion greenbacks to paper over the damage. As industries are first taxed, then regulated, and finally nationalized, the referees begin tackling players and running touchdowns. The only honest government is small government, so if you’re sincerely opposed to political corruption, that’s what you should insist on.
To read more articles by Doctor Zero, visit his website at www.doczero.org
While campaigning in Quincy, Congressman Phil Hare was cornered by a group of his constituents who engaged him in a debate about health care. When asked where in the Constitution it gives congress the authority to pass this bill, he responds, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.” See the whole exchange for yourself:
After having ample time to scramble around and figure out what other meaning might possibly be attributed to his statement, Hare posted his own calculated response, which accuses his constituents of taking his words out of context (see below). Hare’s spokesman, Tim Schlittner, also released a statement that makes the same argument: “His full statement said ‘I’m not worried about the Constitution on this.’ ‘On this’ meant that he is not worried about this health care law being ruled unconstitutional.” That’s quite a stretch. See for yourself.
Now, I’m no lawyer or fancy talkin’ type, but I reckon this here conversation didn’t have anything do with the health care bill going to the courts (considering the fact that that topic did not enter into the debate at any point in this exchange). In fact, Hare’s sad tale about how this bill would save the family of a child going to the emergency room from being stuck with a $10,000 bill was just wrapping up when the “C” -bomb was dropped. But I’m not here to tell you what to think. Was this a heated argument where his words were taken completely out of context, or was it a Freudian slip that reveals where this congressman stands on the Constitution? Here’s a better question: are his constituents willing to risk that the latter is true when they cast their votes in the next election?
Does the Health Care Bill set up an Obama only approved domestic army of dedicated followers? Buried deep, page 1313, in the very controversial bill of 2700 pages is the establishment of a Ready Reserve Corps for immediate service in time of national emergency. No definition of national emergency is given in relationship to the creation of this group. No explanation of why the National Guard or the fire and police departments already in place are not enough. Nor is there a sentence limiting this new force to health care functions only.
What is clear is that over 320 million is appropriated for the fiscal year 2010, suggesting immediate employment. This will be raised by at least 125 million each year until the total amount for fiscal year 2015 is over 1.1 billion. The money to fund the Ready Reserve Corps is to come “out of any funds in the Treasury.” Of course that actually means from the taxpayer. These amounts suggest the employment of thousands.
This bill already increases the number of IRS employees by 16,000 in order to enforce that everyone gets and pays for healthcare whether they want it or not. So what will the Ready Reserve Corps do? They are to be on short notice “to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.” But there is no language restricting their use in these cases, nor is there a definition of “public health” or “national emergency.”
Disturbing is that commissioned officers “shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923.” Civil service laws are in place to ensure one can be screened for employment with no regard to his or her political views, and classification laws define compensations by classification. Obviously such will be waived.
More disturbing is that “commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corp shall be appointed by the President” alone. The “advice and consent of the Senate” is excluded in making the appointment. Since no qualifications are specifically noted (instead noticeably waved) it seems any goon will do. With 30 years experience in studying the rise and fall of great nations, this is especially disturbing to me. It is reminiscent of the Brown Shirts in NAZI Germany, where dissention was hunted and punished.
Especially unsettling in light of the above is candidate Obama’s July 2, 2008 statement. “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Is this the beginning of such a force? The U.S. army has nearly 500,000 troops excluding the National Guard. In 2007 our U.S. Defense budget was 439 billion dollars. Why would we need a domestic security force even larger? And what would it do, pick on dissenters like Tea Party participants? Is this the civilian national security force of which he spoke? Sounds like thug-ocracy and a potential threat to our freedom.
Now that Heath Care legislation has passed, the obvious question for opponents is this: Now What? My answer is best summed up with just one word:
Marijuana.
No, I don’t mean that you should go out and smoke away your anger and frustration. Instead, you should feel empowered. The best way to explain this is by telling the story of a disabled mother from Northern California.
ANGEL’S STORY
Angel Raich has been permanently disabled since 1995. She has an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and other serious medical conditions. In 1997, her doctor felt that marijuana would be an effective medication.
Angel used homegrown marijuana, and she and her physician claim that it’s helped significantly. You may not agree with Angel’s choice, but it’s one made in accordance with California state law, which allows for such use. The federal government, however, has not shown much respect for state laws in recent decades, and chose to take action. After DEA agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants, she sued to stop them from doing so again.
The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana – in any situation.
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
The court ruled that control over a plant grown and consumed on one’s own property was authorized under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate…commerce among the several states.” It has never been amended.
Like any legal document, if the words of the Constitution mean today what they meant at the moment it was signed, we must understand just what those words meant at the time of its ratification.
There’s been a lot of scholarly research on this clause, especially the word “commerce” itself. Without getting into the long details of it all, it means this: Congress is authorized to make uniform national rules on the trade and exchange of goods (and related activities like their transportation) that cross state borders. On top of it, the word “regulate” meant to “make regular” – that is, to specify how these transactions may be conducted. Regulate did not mean ban, prohibit, or mandate. These words have different meanings.
With this in mind, the Supreme Court, which is not a set of nine infallible gods, ruled incorrectly. But rule, they did. Thus, all three federal branches agreed that State-level laws allowing marijuana were a no-go. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:
“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
RESIST DC
Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire.
Today, over half a million people are registered users of medical marijuana, and estimates say that millions more use the plant without registration. What’s been the result? The federal government will occasionally arrest some high-profile users, but taken in the perspective of the multitudes consuming the plant, the threat is quite low.
And, in mid-2009, recognizing a need for “efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources,” the Justice Department announced that it would back off the prosecution of medical marijuana patients even further.
HUH?
You might be asking, “How does this apply to healthcare mandates?” Well, the answer is pretty simple. When enough states pass laws defying federal laws, and enough people actively defy them too, D.C. simply doesn’t have the manpower to arrest and prosecute all of us.
This kind of activism – while it clearly carries personal risk – should be a real blueprint for people that have been consistently unable to find constitutional relief in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.
Marijuana users: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, but show some respect for them, as many have suffered greatly for doing what they believe is right. People who believe strongly about other issues, like health care mandates, would do well to learn from them.
What should be done about federal control over health care? The same thing that should be done for every unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or mandate – Nullify Now!
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
Last December, when Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, said she would introduce legislation which would declare null and void any federal law the state deems unconstitutional, some people were horrified. Rep. Lynn was specifically targeting the health-care reform legislation that was pending at that time. But the reaction that many people had to her language was not an expression of their support for Obamacare.
Too many Americans hear the terms “states’ rights” or the word “nullification” and immediately think of racial prejudice, Jim Crow laws and school segregation. Honestly, if all I had to rely on was what I remember being taught in public school, I would probably tell you the history of it all went like this:
The theory of nullification was first invented in the 1800s’ by advocates of slavery. They used nullification of tarrifs as a test run in the 1820s. Of course, what they really had in mind was maintaining the institution of slavery against any possible attempt by the federal government to abolish it. Then America fought the Civil War in order to end slavery, but the ideas of states’ rights and nullification were later revived in the 1950s’ by belligerent white southerners in an attempt to block the racial integration of schools. The Civil Rights Movement started and the feds had to step in and force the southern states to treat everyone equally. THE END.
That’s a rough, abbreviated version of the narrative that was handed to me, but it gives you an idea of what many Americans think they know about states’ rights and nullification. Fortunately, thanks to people like Tom Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, and many others, I know today that this was a gross misrepresentation of the classical liberal states’ rights tradition. Then again, (and it’s not my intention to be prideful here), I’m not like most Americans. And If you’re reading this, you probably aren’t either.
Civic Illiteracy
In 1798, Jefferson and Madison articulated the concepts of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were passed in response to to the hated Alienand Sedition Acts. But the ideas which support nullification and interposition were actually expressed earlier during the ratifying convention of Virginia by the Federalists themselves!
Given the fact, however, that most Americans cannot even correctly name all three branches of our federal government, it’s probably a safe bet that they have never heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or the fact that nullification was used to assist runaway slaves.
So should it really come as any surprise that many people in Tennessee recoiled in horror at Rep. Susan Lynn’s comments about nullification? Rep. Mike Turner of Tennessee’s 51st District responded with a sarcastic and condescending comment that probably expressed the sentiment of many Tennessee’s left-liberal elites:
“Susan Lynn is yearning for times gone by,” Turner said. “Maybe we could put the poor people back to sharecropping and slavery and let the people up at the big house have all the nice things. We’ve already had that fight about states’ rights.”
Lynn responded to Turner’s comment by saying:
“I can’t even imagine that’s a serious comment.”
Rep. Turner’s comments resemble some of the incredibly ignorant and / or vicious comments directed against today’s advocates of nullification that frequently appear in the bologoshpere. One particular blogpost I stumbled upon really embodies the either extremely ignorant or wholly deceptive attempt to associate today’s proponents of states’ rights and nullification with segregationists, white supremacists and domestic terrorists:
“Why is it that the extremist teabaggers are not called traitors even though they are basically calling for an overthrow of the democratically elected U.S. government? There latest stunt should seal it. They are calling for a long rejected theory called Nullification, and at least one treasonous..blogger and teabagger is pushing it.”
In 1850, Congress compromised in order to hold the Union together against the divisive issue of slavery. Since the preservation of the Union (Northern control of the South’s economy), rather than the abolition of slavery was foremost in the minds of influential Republican bankers, manufacturers and heads of corporations, this compromise made perfect sense.
Part of this compromise was the passage of more stringent fugitive slave legislation that compelled citizens of all states to assist federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves and brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for suspected slaves, and made their testimony non-admissible in court. The written testimony of the alleged slave’s master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.
As would be expected, this new legislation outraged abolitionists, but also angered many citizens who were previously more apathetic. In 1851, 26 people in Syracuse, New York were arrested, charged and tried for freeing a runaway slave named William Henry (aka Jerry) who had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. Among the 26 people tried was a U.S. Senator and the former Governor of New York! In an act of jury nullification, the trial resulted in only one conviction. “Jerry” was hidden in Syracuse for several days until he could safely escape into Canada.
The government of Wisconsin went even further and in 1854 officially declared the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional. The events that lead up to this monumental decision, which is a milestone in the history of the states’ rights tradition, is one of the best stories most Americans have never heard.
“Terribly conflicted about race, Americans struggled mightily with a revolutionary heritage that sanctified liberty but also brooked compromise with slavery. Nevertheless, as The Rescue of Joshua Glover demonstrates, they maintained the principle that the people themselves were the last defenders of constitutional liberty…”
Joshua Glover was a slave in Missouri who managed to escape from his master. In 1854, with the help of the Underground Railroad, he made his way north, all the way to Wisconsin. There he found work at a mill in Racine, a community in which anti-slavery sentiment ran high. Unfortunately for Glover, his former master, B.S. Garland eventually managed to find out where Glover had taken up residence.
Accompanied by two US Marshals, the three of them took Glover by surprise. In spite of his resistance, Glover was subdued with a club and handcuffed. Thrown into a wagon, he was surreptitiously transported to Milwaukee, where he was thrown in jail. Glover’s abduction was discovered somehow or another, however, and in no time one hundred or so men landed by boat in Milwaukee.
The men marched towards the courthouse, which was adjacent to the jail, and crowds of people began to join their ranks or follow along as spectators. An abolitionist named Sherman Booth, who published a local daily newspaper there called the “Free Soil Democrat” rallied the supporters of the citizen army shouting:
“All freemen who are opposed to being made slaves or slave-catchers turn out to a meeting in the courthouse square at 2 o’clock!”
When the meeting at the courthouse adjourned, those who had assembled eventually resolved that Joshua Glover was entitled to at least two things: A writ of habeas corpus and a trial by jury. A local judge concurred and delivered the writ to the US Marshals at the jail. As might be expected, the federal officers rejected the writ as invalid. After all, federal law trumps state judicial authority, does it not?
The assembly of citizens from Racine and Milwaukee must have decided that such was not the case in this instance. In fearless defiance, they broke down the doors of the jail and freed Joshua Glover. In an act that probably would have filled Sheriff Mack with joy, had he been there, the Racine County Sheriff arrested Glover’s former slave master and the two US Marshals who had kidnapped him. They were charged with assault and put jail. In the meantime, the Underground Railroad assisted Joshua Glover as he crossed the border into Canada.
Although Glover escaped to freedom, it was not without a price. Glover’s former master, B.S. Garland was released on a writ of habeas corpus and in the long run would sue Sherman Booth, turning him financially upside down.
In the short run, Booth and two other men were arrested and indicted by a grand jury. While Booth maintained that he had never incited the crowd to liberate Glover or that had helped Glover escape in any way, he did not mince words either. Speaking in his own defense in front of the US Commissioner, he proclaimed:
“..I sympathize with the rescuers of Glover and rejoice at his escape. I rejoice that, in the first attempt of the slave-hunters to convert our jail into a slave-pen and our citizens into slave-catchers, they have signally failed, and that it has been decided by the spontaneous uprising and sovereign voice of the people, that no human being can be dragged into bondage from Milwaukee.”
According to his account of these events, Henry E. Legler wrote in 1898:
“Byron Paine made an argument in behalf of Booth that attracted attention all over the country. It was printed in pamphlet form and circulated on the streets of Boston by the thousands. Charles Sumner and Wendell Phillips wrote the author letters of hearty approval and commended his force of logic and able presentation of argument. This pamphlet is now excessively rare; but half a dozen copies are now known to exist.”
Judge Smith of the Wisconsin Supreme Court made the following declaration, that ought to inspire and motivate champions of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty today. Speaking not only for Wisconsin, but of all the states, he said that they would never accept the idea that:
“..an officer of the United States, armed with process to arrest a fugitive from service, is clothed with entire immunity from state authority; to commit whatever crime or outrage against the laws of the state; that their own high prerogative writ of habeas corpus shall be annulled, their authority defied, their officers resisted, the process of their own courts contemned, their territory invaded by federal force, the houses of their citizens searched, the sanctuary or their homes invaded, their streets and public places made the scenes of tumultuous and armed violence, and state sovereignty succumb–paralyzed and aghast–before the process of an officer unknown to the constitution and irresponsible to its sanctions. At least, such shall not become the degradation of Wisconsin, without meeting as stern remonstrance and resistance as I may be able to interpose, so long as her people impose upon me the duty of guarding their rights and liberties, and maintaining the dignity and sovereignty of their state.”
The United States Supreme court eventually reversed the action of the Wisconsin’s courts. Booth and one other man accused of helping to liberate Joshua Glover were found guilty. Both spent months in jail in addition to having to pay stiff fines. This was the price that was paid for Joshua Glover’s freedom.
Rather than being deterred, however, Wisconsin, along with several other states, such as Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), and Kansas (1858) all went on to pass even more personal liberty legislation designed to neutralize federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
It was no coincidence that the 1859 statement of the Wisconsin Supreme Court borrowed words directly from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
“Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
The End, or Just the Beginning?
Few Americans have ever heard the heroic story of how the people of Wisconson and several other states stood up to the federal government’s tyrannical, unconstitutional slave laws with the help of their elected state officials.
Today state sovereignty and the Principles of 1798 are being invoked again, for a variety of reasons, just as they were invoked for a variety of reasons all throughout American history, in spite of what you may have been taught or are being told today.
States legislatures all over the Union today are standing up and re-asserting their sovereignty, which is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. They are proposing and passing legislation which would nullify a whole host of unconstitutional federal laws including: The federally mandated national “REAL ID” card, restrictions on the use of Medical Marijuana, unconstitutional deployments of State National Guard units, federally mandated health insurance, unconstitutional regulations of state manufactured firearms and much more…
It is tragic that left-liberals have seemingly abandoned the classical liberal states’ rights tradition in favor of nationalism and the centralization of power. It is also shameful that they have made a concerted effort to associate nullification with slavery in the minds of average Americans. As Josh Eboch, State Chapter Coordinator for the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center observes:
“Of course, even though activists on the left supported nullification for Real ID and also for medical marijuana, those calling for state sovereignty with regard to health care will have to deal with the standard cries of racism and references to the Jim Crow…But just because nullification was used [unsuccessfully] in the past to deny rights to certain groups doesn’t mean it can’t be used to regain our rights today. In the end, ‘for desperate people whose freedoms are being systematically usurped by all three federal branches and both political parties, nullification may be the key to restoring our republic’.”
