- Can A State Withdraw From
A Constitutional Amendment?
Exclusive to Rense.com
By Devvy
2-1-11
-
 Yesterday's ruling by Judge Roger Vinson
regarding the constitutionality of CommieCare is a victory of sorts. Of
course, the Red 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."
-
- That statement is just more clever word smithing. I doubt
Ms. Cutter even read Judge Vinson's decision.[1] He was meticulous and
constitutionally on point in his ruling with the exception in my humble
opinion and not having any training in the law, the following statement
on page 6 of his decision: "Under Dole, there are four restrictions
on Congress' Constitutional spending power: (1) the spending must be for
the general welfare;"
-
- "With respect to the words "general welfare,"
I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected
with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis
of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was
not contemplated by its creators." James Madison
-
- I highly encourage you listen
to this presentation which shreds that idea; if time is an issue,
bookmark it for later.
-
- Of course, nothing the judge wrote matters to the putative
president, his lackeys and their agenda.
-
- 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 yesterday's 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. Estimates are up to three years for the Supreme
Court to decide - if they even take the case. 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. Roberts (age
56), Scalia (age 74), Thomas (age 62) and Alito (age 60) are generally
considered conservative votes; Kennedy (age 74) has been known to vote
liberal. Ginsburg, who should have retired years ago because of her health
is 77 and liberal. Breyer (age 72), Kagan, who should be removed is 50,
and Sotomayer who should have been indicted years ago for running a bankruptcy
scheme with other judges is 56 - all liberal votes.
-
- 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.
-
- I can tell you as sure as there's a massive snow storm
pounding half the country as I write this column, the Outlaw Congress will
not introduce an amendment to repeal the Seventeenth. 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?[2]
-
- The question was raised by 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?
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of
the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention
for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions
in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification
may be proposed by the Congress; 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. While in session, our legislature is in
hyper drive to get all bills in the hopper passed. 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 rotten, activist judges or supreme court justices who owe their good
fortune to a sitting president and unconstitutional bills like the phony
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.
-
- This is a joint resolution written by
our activist here in Texas who intends (after recovering from surgery)
to walk the halls of our state capitol with a copy in an effort to get
this going. He has indicated to me there is great interest from Tea Party
folks he's contacted. As you can see, this 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? That resolution
is just step one; of course, state reps and senators have excellent constitutional
lawyers to draw upon to write their own resolution or even a bill.
-
- 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? Please feel free to print out this column
and include it or copy and paste the historical references to
include in your letter. 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.
-
-
- Footnote:
-
- [1] Copy
of Judge Vinson's decision
- [2] Please
scroll down to page 85 (bottom right hand side of page) to read an absolutely
- superb presentation;
Georgia General Assembly. (Please note this is a massive
- file and takes a few minutes to load even with DSL)
-
- Perfect examples of selling out a state by senators:
- Sneak Attack by Sen. Jon Tester
- Swiss billionaire puts $35M into Montana conservation
-
- Links:
-
- Nullification:
Answering the Objections
- 10 states invoke 1700s 'nullification doctrine'
- The
"General Welfare" Clause
- Obamacare and the Individual Mandate: Violating Personal Liberty
and Federalism
- New CRS Memo Confirms Enforcement of Individual Mandate Penalties
Is Destined for Failure
- ----
- http://www.devvy.com. You may also sign up for her free email alerts.
-
-
-
|
