State lawmakers are looking to shield their constituents from big brother’s over-reaching attempt to manage individuals’ health care decisions. Because of attempts to force government insurance requirements and purchases some lawmakers are introducing proposals that assert states’ rights over federal power grabs.

The state of Arizona has already placed an amendment on their 2010 ballot that would let voters decide if they want to block the federal government’s universal health care plans on the basis of constitutionality.

Minnesota is another state that is attempting, through legislation, to set the ground rules for any possible future federal plans. As quoted in the New York Times, Tom Emmer a Minnesota state rep says, “All I’m trying to do is protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions.” “I just don’t want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors.”

“Most legislators are interested in improving the health of Minnesotans, and how to do more health care reform,” Margaret Anderson Kelliher told the Times. Kelliher is a Minnesota Democrat and speaker of the House who is also running for governor.  “No one thinks the answer is a states’ right movement.” (Bad form to criticize, but how does one “do more health care reform?”)

Emmer noted that the idea of the state constitutional proposals would not prevent anyone from taking part in the federal health care system, it would just eliminate the ability of the federal government to force participation. This would seem an excellent idea and one that few would object to, logically speaking (but more on that in a moment).
 
Opponents of the measures are dismissing the states’ rights issue by saying it will never stand up in court, and that it’s only a tactic to delay the inevitable, causing much unneeded expense through legal battles, and confusing the constituency. They are relying on the Constitution’s supremacy clause that is often invoked to trump state laws and court precedent. But the seemingly boundless elasticity of that clause is highly suspect these days, with more and more focus on the Founders’ original intent seeing more light.

Nonetheless, Mark Hall of Wake Forest University and a law professor labels the nullifying proposals nothing more than a “sort of an act of defiance, a form of civil disobedience if you will.” He predicts it will never win in court. Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown law school professor admitted that, “using federal power to force individuals to buy private insurance raises serious constitutional questions,” but still doesn’t see “what these state resolutions add to the constitutional objections to this expansion of federal power.”

What opponents admit to is the fear that any assertion of states’ rights in a court of law could spill over into other areas such has education, drug policies, and even interstate commerce, something the long-armed federal government is unwilling to give up. So the fight will indeed be on.

Representative Emmer refuses to retire in defeat by having cold water splashed over his state’s constitutional rights: “They’re essentially saying that state constitutions are meaningless,” he said, “and I disagree. And tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the federal government has the right to provide health care? This is the essence of the debate.”

State representatives trying to head off federal laws at the pass in an effort to preserve what little is left of individual rights is wise indeed.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

DDW said:

	Good!!! And very encouraging.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 02, 2009
Votes: +2

Pat Henry said:

Lesser magistrates must stand While it's great that there will be ballot initiatives, we do not live (nor do we want to) in a pure democracy. The doctrine of the lesser magistrate needs asserted. Courage! Stand your ground yourselves, authorities in the States. Authorities have the duty to protect their citizenry from illegal oppression, even when that comes through unrighteous (illegal, unConstitutional) use of the power of another authority. Authority does not grant unlimited power. God ordains authority - thereby it is circumscribed to obedience to His law and boundaries. This is why we have states, counties, etc., as well as a separation of powers within the Federal government itself. (And the Feds swear to uphold the Constitution - beyond this, they usurp.) Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford, as well as A Christian Manifest by Francis Schaeffer - among many other fine works - bear reading and understanding. The first duty of a civil power is to prevent bloodshed (e.g. abortion, and now euthanasia).

report abuse vote down vote up

October 03, 2009
Votes: +3

Kenneth Creech said:

	... Ah! Euthanasia... that is a fine thought sounds like government health care or the lack thereof if we permit it. Stand up AMERICANS and call out your elected officials on where they stand relative to the constitution!!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 05, 2009
Votes: +0