Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Tenth Amendment’

The Constitutional “Shall Not’s” of Congress


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

shall notVigilance-2

Universal human rights are determined by government restraint. In what areas of human life should the government not be involved? What areas of life must the government not regulate, not restrain, not limit, not oversee, not implement, not subsidize, not legalize or make illegal? Interestingly, the first five words of the Bill of Rights state what Congress cannot do: “Congress shall make no law… .” Even more telling– the first ten amendments, with perhaps The Sixth as the exception, all define what the government cannot do:

  • First: “Shall make no law … prohibiting … abridging,
  • Second: “Shall not be infringed”
  • Third: “No soldier shall … without the consent …”
  • Fourth: “Shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue …”
  • Fifth: “No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject …”
  • Seventh: “Shall be preserved … No fact … shall be otherwise reexamined …”
  • Eighth: “Shall not be required … Nor excessive … imposed, nor … punishments inflicted”
  • Ninth: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”
  • Tenth: “Not delegated … nor prohibited.”

The third, fifth, eighth, and tenth amendments don’t state “rights;” they state what authority the government does not have. In effect, limits on government are universal human rights. The Constitution outlines specific areas of human life that are off-limits to government. This suggests that there are certain aspects of human life which are fundamentally free.tie it down

The Constitution did not outline rights or prohibitions defined by a government that could later redefine them. It outlined rules to be followed by a self-ruling people in addition to separating and balancing political authority among judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

Despite the limits the Founders enumerated in the Constitution, their limits are still limited in their ability to constrain government overreach. Matters of conscience, especially as they relate to the First Amendment, dictate certain situations when citizens decide to not follow and/or disobey unjust laws. Interestingly, dissent in the form of collective actions of conscience (refusing to pay taxes, boycotting specific products, and armed resistance) among approximately one third of American colonists who fought for independence.Tree of Liberty 03

The Constitution was the result of a point in time that the Founding Fathers and Framers identified of a line they could not cross. They could not comply in good conscience– it would be immoral to comply– with the laws of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Christians joined them, citing New Testament directives, identifying that they also must only “obey God rather than men.”christianity

They recognized they could not selectively disobey certain laws because the government itself could not be obeyed. They needed a new government. Rebellion and resistance were required because the ruling authorities had rebelled against God. The government had not only violated basic principles of justice but also had squandered God-given human rights, rendering itself illegitimate.

Thomas Jefferson asserted:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long Established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, Accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,  pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Jefferson also said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Shall Nots were imperative to the Founders– they wanted to ensure that if Congress violated them the people had just cause to rebel.

two ways to enslave a nation theBible moral people John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1 John-Adams-Poster-Principles-of-Freedom JohnAdamsFaithQuote4 freedom democracy freedom combo 2

Georgia House Votes to Nullify Obamacare


FreedomOutpost_Masthead

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/georgia-house-votes-nullify-obamacare/#eLXiD56fw8OpMUVj.99

 Posted by

ALWAYS REMEMBER, AND REMIND EVERYONE ELSE

Only Democrats

Late Monday evening, the Georgia State House of Representatives passed HB707, which bans the state participating in significant portions of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.  The vote was 115-59.

Representative Jason Spencer introduced HB707, The Georgia Health Care Freedom and ACA Noncompliance Act.  Spencer also had five co-sponsors to the bill.

According to Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin, “While Georgia can’t fully stop Obamacare on its own, it can serve as a pretty major roadblock to implementation,” he said. “And as more states get on board with this strategy, it will pull the rug out from under it. Bills like this will end Obamacare from the bottom up.”

HB707 specifically provides the following bans:

  1. Prohibits any state agencies, departments or political subdivisions from using resources or spending funds to advocate for the expansion of Medicaid. This provision works hand-in-hand with HB990 to make it more difficult to expand Medicaid. HB990 would require legislative approval for expansion of the program, barring the governor from doing it by executive order.
  2. Prohibits the state of Georgia from running an insurance exchange.
  3. Refuses and federal grant money for the purpose of creating or running a state insurance exchange.
  4. Ends the University of Georgia Health Navigator Program.
  5. Prohibits the Commissioner of Insurance from investigating or enforcing any alleged violation of federal health insurance requirements mandated by Obamacare.

Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said, “While Georgia can’t fully stop Obamacare on its own, it can serve as a pretty major roadblock to implementation.  And as more states get on board with this strategy, it will pull the rug out from under it. Bills like this will end Obamacare from the bottom up.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano agrees.  Regarding South Carolina’s push to remove Obamacare from being implemented in the Palmetto state, Napolitano said, “If Enough States do this, It will Gut Obamacare.”

The Tenth Amendment center also points out:

The provision prohibiting the Georgia insurance commissioner from investigating or enforcing violations of federally mandated health insurance requirements will prove particularly problematic for the feds. Insurance commissioners serve as the enforcement arm for insurance regulation in the states. The federal government has no enforcement arm. It assumed the state insurance commissioners would enforce all of the provisions of the ACA. So, when people have issues with their mandated coverage, they will have to call the feds. At this point, it remains unclear who they will even call. Issues the Georgia insurance commissioner will not address include prohibiting a denial of insurance for preexisting conditions, requiring dependent coverage for children up to age 26, and proscribing lifetime or yearly dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits.

Rep. Spencer said, “Disputes over these mandates arise under federal, not state law.  The federal Department of Health and Human Services can be expected to seek to commandeer the machinery of Georgia’s commissioner of insurance to enforce them or to investigate alleged violations because at present there is no federal health insurance agency and Congress is not likely to create one given the substantial opposition to Obamacare. Under HB707, the feds won’t be able to do that. They’ll have to figure out how to do it themselves.”

The legislation rests on a little known ruling by the Supreme Court referred to as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Georgia is one of eleven states engaged in some form of nullification of Obamacare.

As I have pointed out before, nullification is a good thing, but it requires more, should the federal government seek to show a use of force and make an example of one state.  That would require interposition, or the state stepping in and making it a crime to enforce federal laws that are deemed unconstitutional by the state.  For nullification with teeth, I suggest taking a look at Albany, New York’s nullification of NDAA.

The bill will now move to the Senate.

Death and Taxes

About Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty.  Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/georgia-house-votes-nullify-obamacare/#eLXiD56fw8OpMUVj.99

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: