Sunday, March 18, 2012

Supreme Court to ponder edict on insurance requirement

Opening the way to nullification fight

Supreme Court justices are allotting an unusually long period - six hours over three days - beginning March 26, to hear arguments challenging the constitutionality of the government requiring people to buy health insurance if they're not already covered by employers' health plans, Medicare, or Veterans Affairs benefits.

The requirement was recently described by a panel of three federal appeals court justices sitting in Atlanta as “breathtaking” in its audacity. Other federal judges have compared the stricture as no more dramatic than that of states requiring motorists to be insured for liability in automobile accidents.

Their ruling, expected in June, is shaping up as what is being touted as a historic moment in the century-long quest by reformers to provide affordable health care for all.

An Associated Press dispatch described the conflict in this way. “Many critics and supporters alike see the insurance requirement as the linchpin of Obama's health care law: Take away the mandate and the wheels fall off.

“Politically it was a wobbly construction from the start. It seems half of Washington has flip-flopped over mandating insurance.”

Advocates of limited government and states rights see the conflict as an opening shot in a campaign to circumvent the new law, either by legislative nullification, a refusal by jurors to adjudicate cases brought against those who refuse to pay for health insurance, or intervention by the County Sheriffs who choose to deny prosecutors the ability to serve process in cases brought in their jurisdiction.

Here is model legislation prepared by the Tenth Amendment Center which could be passed by a state legislature to nullify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was passed in March of 2010:

An Act to render null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States, taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.

SECTION 1. The legislature of the State of ____________ finds that:

1. The People of the several states comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes, and nothing more.

2. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves.

3. The assumption of power that the federal government has made by enacting the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” interferes with the right of the People of the State of _____________ to regulate health care as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”


A new section of law to be codified in the [STATE] Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. The Legislature of the State of _______________ declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” within the limits of this State.

C. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or both.

D. Any public officer or employee of the State of ____________ that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding two (2) years or by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment.

E. Any aggrieved party shall also have a private action against any person violating the provisions of subsections (C) or (D).

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

1 comment:

  1. Many experts and followers as well see the insurance need as the linchpin of Our country's medical care law. Take away the need and the tires drop off.

    accident injury lawyer milwaukee