Proposed Florida Amendment Seeks to Block Federal Mandatory Healthcare Insurance
Florida is following the path of Arizona and state nullification over the proposed Obama healthcare reform. A proposed amendment to the Florida constitution would “”prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system”. The amendment addresses Obama healthcare reform legislation which includes a federal government mandate which, by law, would require every American to carry healthcare insurance or a face a fine and/or jail time.
“No one here would have to obey the mandates or pay any new taxes or fines outlined in congressional health care bills, the joint resolution says. However, Florida patients and providers still would have the freedom to draw billions of dollars from Medicare and VA benefit plans.”
The proposed Florida amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, would have to be approved by Florida voters next year. The bill includes 40 House co-sponsors, all Republicans.
Workman foresees a significant battle over whether state constitutions trump federal law, with the “final decision up to the Supreme Court”.
Waiting for voter approval in Arizona next year is HCR2014, the Health Care Freedom Act. HCR2014 was approved in June:
This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.
HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.
Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.
Tenth Amendment Center
On December 30, Colorado Arapahoe County District Court Judge Christopher Cross issued an oral ruling on a state constitution versus federal law case involving medical marijuana. Judge Cross ruled that, despite of federal laws against medical marijuana, Colorado “medical marijuana patients have a constitutional right to buy pot, not just use it”.
The case involved a medical marijuana dispensary which sued the city of Centennial after the dispensary was shut down in October. Centennial argued they were following federal drug laws. In 2000, Colorado passed a constitutional amendment allowing medical marijuana, which is now allowed in 14 states.
In the oral ruling, the judge had sharp words for cities that say federal drug laws allow them to keep out any dispensaries. Cross said the city violated the rights of three medical marijuana patients who joined the lawsuit.
“These are people who have a right to medical marijuana, the right to the caregiver of their choice. That has been taken away from them,” Cross said.
In July, the state of Tennessee fired the first salvo in a state constitution versus federal gun laws. The state passed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act which hinges on the Federal Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendment and the right of the Federal government to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Tennessee. And, the Second Amendment, the right of Tennessee residents to “keep and bear arms”.
SECTION 3. The general assembly declares that the authority for this act is the following:
(1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Tennessee certain powers as they were understood at the time that Tennessee was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Tennessee and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Tennessee and the United States;
(2) The ninth amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution and reserves to the people of Tennessee certain rights as they were understood at the time that Tennessee was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Tennessee and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Tennessee and the United States.
(3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition;
The ATF fired back, sending Tennessee a letter in which the ATV outlined their view of federal law versus state constitutions:
The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 (â€Actâ€), effective June 19, 2009, has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.”
Recently, Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn caught some “racist” flack over her proposal to introduce legislation which would “null and void” federal healthcare law:
On the far-right Mike Church Show on the Sirius radio network this week, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, said she may introduce legislation purporting to let Tennessee declare null and void any federal law the state deems unconstitutional. She said she would target the pending health-care reform legislation as the first federal law to nullify.
She also said she favors a state constitutional amendment giving citizens the right to choose their own health care.
“We have to do both,†Lynn said. “We have to have a law immediately, and then we also have to have a constitutional amendment to protect our citizens through our constitution.â€
Rep. Mike Turner, chairman of the House Democrats’ political caucus, said Tuesday Lynn’s comments harkened back to Civil War-era arguments. In the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, South Carolina passed a law nullifying federal tariffs, but the state backed down after President Andrew Jackson sent Navy warships to the Charleston harbor.
“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.”
Aside from Turner’s flagrant racist remarks, we can’t but wonder how Turner, a Tennessee representative, is so clueless about the ongoing fight over “state’s rights” and federal gun laws in his own home state?
Source – Florida Today – Matt Reed: Could bill block national health care mandates?
Image – Obama Federales
