8:45pm ET Update:

Regardless of what the federal government may do concerning healthcare, a majority of States are looking at or passing their own constitutional amendments to keep Congress from encroaching on their turf, and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) supports the initiatives (excerpted from The Washington Times):

Lawmakers in 30 states are pressing for constitutional amendments to exempt individuals from the requirement to purchase health care, a pivotal piece of the legislation under debate in Congress.

In Colorado, organizers of a proposed ballot measure filed language with the state elections office Friday. They would like the state legislature to place the amendment on the ballot, but given that both houses are controlled by Democrats, that’s unlikely.

“I want Colorado to become a sanctuary state for good health care,” said Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, who is leading the ballot effort. “People are angry, and rightfully so. If the legislature’s not going to step up and do something, then we’re going to have to.” …

Nineteen states have filed or pre-filed legislation using [American Legislative Exchange Council's] legislative language, known as the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, said Christie Herrera, ALEC’s director of health and human services task force. Ten others have announced their intent to introduce similar bills this session.

Readers will recall my coverage of the proposed Arizona amendment. And while the measure failed by less than a percent last year, State lawmakers are bringing it up again for 2014:

The Freedom of Choice act was in turn modeled after Proposition 101, the proposed 2008 Arizona constitutional amendment. Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who is now homeland security secretary, opposed the proposition, saying it would interfere with public health programs. Heavily outspent, the initiative lost by a nose: The margin of defeat was 50.2 percent to 49.8 percent.

But Proposition 101 is getting a second chance: The Republican-dominated state Legislature voted in June to place its clone, House Bill 2014, on the 2010 ballot.

The article continues with a quote from Minority Leader Boehner:

“With our focus squarely on defeating a government takeover of health care, this growing rebellion in the states is yet another indication of strong grass-roots opposition to Washington Democrats’ plans,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “All the burdensome mandates, tax hikes, and new layers of red tape Democrats are devising behind closed doors would wreak havoc on the states, so it’s no surprise a majority of them are already fighting back.”

Thursday, January 21, 2010 Update:

Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss’ office recently released the following presser encouraging the several States’ Attorneys General to expand the scope of their investigation into the healthcare bill, including what they see as the “unusual and disparate treatment” of Medicare enrollees:

Jan 20 2010

Dear Attorney General,

We appreciate the time and hard work you have put into analyzing the unusual, if not unprecedented, provision in the Senate health care bill in regards to Nebraska’s future Medicaid expenses.  Your legal analysis regarding the unequal treatment of the states by the federal government has helped us better understand and hopefully address some of the negative consequences of the legislation.

We would also like to request that you investigate, and if the facts again warrant, expand the scope of your investigation to include another serious issue — the unusual and disparate treatment of individuals currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program.

Medicare Advantage, as you may know, is the privately-managed option that one fifth of seniors have already chosen instead of traditional fee-for-service Medicare.  The program offers seniors a choice in how their Medicare benefits are delivered. Medicare Advantage more closely resembles the insurance plans that many of these beneficiaries had as workers.  Some of these plans also cover benefits that fee-for-service Medicare does not; for example, dental and vision benefits, hearing aids, chronic care management, and reduced beneficiary cost sharing.  Medicare Advantage enrollment represents about 329,000 seniors in Arizona, 176,000 in Georgia, and 111,000 in South Carolina.

As currently written, Section 3201(g) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act appears to have been drafted in such a manner that it would effectively “grandfather” Medicare Advantage enrollees living in specific counties in the State of Florida into the program, while subjecting approximately 10 million Medicare Advantage enrollees across the US to significant cuts in their benefits.

Medicare Advantage enrollees in other states are likely to see their Medicare Advantage program benefits drastically slashed, if not virtually eliminated.  In many cases, they may have no choice but to switch back to fee-for-service Medicare, which brings with it additional financial burdens such as unlimited out-of-pocket expenses and gaps in coverage that often require the purchase of supplemental insurance.

We have serious concerns about the effects of this provision on all Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who do not reside in these specific Florida counties.  We would like your opinion on this situation and would be interested to learn of any legal issues that you believe could be posed to the unequal Medicare Advantage policy that will be enacted under this legislation.

We also want to be clear that our problem is not with Medicare Advantage enrollees in the State of Florida, it is with the disparate treatment that enrollees in other states will receive in relation to enrollees in Florida.

We thank you in advance for your consideration and look forward to receiving your analysis of this specific provision and its impact on the residents of our states and seniors nationwide.

—-

Earlier this month, at least 15 State Attorneys General had signed onto an agreement that requested the federal government to remove what’s come to be known as the “Cornhusker Kickback” — or, more formally, the Nebraska Compromise — as a contingency for not litigating on the matter.

This aspect of the healthcare bill was meant to provide Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) monies specifically for his State’s share of Medicaid costs that would otherwise be required to be paid as a part of the sweeping legislation in exchange for his vote.

However, yesterday, the Columbia, South Carolina-based SouthCarolinaRadioNetwork.com reported that the Compromise has been dropped:

The “cornhusker kickback,” the highly controversial provision designed to benefit Nebraska’s Medicaid program, has been dropped from the national health care reform proposal, according to national reports quoting the bill negotiators. …

Sen. Nelson asked Friday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to remove Nebraska’s exemption, and replace it with a provision giving all state governments the same treatment regarding the state match for the new Medicaid expansion.  At that point, officials said that negotiators decided to increase federal Medicaid funding in all states.

The same report points out that South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster had spoken at a National Press Club event on January 14. The Palmetto Scoop has the full C-SPAN video.

Regardless, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum isn’t satisfied that the Nebraska Compromise is the only unconstitutional aspect of the bill (via LegalNewsLine.com):

The Republican gubernatorial hopeful, one of 13 state attorneys general who originally voiced concern over the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” provision of the health care package, said Tuesday that requiring individuals to purchase health insurance raises constitutional concerns. …

FL AG Bill McCollum

“The U.S. Constitution enshrines a form of limited government to protect the rights of the states under a system of federalism and to protect the individual freedom of our citizens,” McCollum wrote.

“The health care individual mandate provisions as currently drafted violate constitutional principles and lack constitutional authority for Congress to enact.”

Under both the House and Senate versions of the package, an individual must purchase health insurance or face a fee or tax.

“Never before has Congress compelled Americans, under threat of government fines or taxes, to purchase an unwanted product or service simply as a condition of existing in this country,” McCollum wrote.

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

Alabama is now officially the next in a series of States passing measures affirming their sovereignty per the Constitution. Via the ever-vigilant TenthAmendmentCenter.com, editor Michael Boldin:

Yesterday, the Alabama House voted to approve Senate Joint Resolution 27 (SJR27) which “claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.” (h/t Jan Lane)

Alabama State flag

The resolution passed the Senate last week and has been sent to the governor for signature.

Alabama is now the 8th state – joining Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho, Louisiana and Tennessee – where similar resolutions affirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution have been approved by both legislative houses in the past year. Alabama is the first state to pass a sovereignty resolution in 2010.

These non-binding resolutions do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state. They play an important role, however.

First, they bring the issue to the public sphere. And they’re considered an important first step in the overall process of the 10th Amendment movement. For example, if you owned an apartment building and had a tenant not paying rent, you wouldn’t show up with an empty truck to kick them out without first serving notice. That’s how many view these Resolutions – as serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.”

What’s most important, is that they help create fertile ground for future actions. Follow-up, say supporters, is a must.

The Alabama resolution is part of a growing grassroots movement in state legislatures across the country as a protest to the intrusion of the federal government into state government affairs, and is an essential first step towards efforts to push back, or nullify, unconstitutional federal laws and regulations.

Be sure to visit CommonSenseForUSA.com (referenced in the above posting) as well as CommonSenseCampaign.org for more citizen activism information.

The TenthAmendmentCenter.com is tracking the 10th Amendment movement on their tracking page. The site also has a template resolution for citizen activists across America.

Also, the TenthAmendmentCenter.com is co-sponsoring the Tenth Amendment Summit here in Georgia at the airport Hilton in Atlanta on February 25 – 26. Featured speakers include Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alabama gubernatorial candidate and Chief Justice Roy Moore, as well as Georgia gubernatorial candidate Ray McBerry.

After Texas GOP Governor Rick Perry made national headlines with varying degrees of talk regarding secession, the concept has come back up in the news again, this time in Vermont. As Ballot-Access.org reports:

A group in Vermont has formed the Vermont Independence Day Party, which believes that Vermont should secede from the United States. It plans to place nominees on the 2010 ballot for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and 7 State Senate seats. See this AP story. …

The group did not use the organization method to qualify itself for the 2010 ballot, and it is too late to do that. That method requires showing that the party has town committees in at least ten towns. But, the group is free to qualify the party by petition for each of its individual candidates. They may have their label, “Vermont Independence Party” on the ballot if they wish. The story erroneously says they will be labeled “independent”. The story is also wrong when it says this is the first pro-secession party in any state. The Alaskan Independence Party has been continuously on the ballot in Alaska starting in 1974, although it didn’t become a qualified party until 1983. The Alaskan Independence Party was formed to work for secession, although its activists no longer talk about that goal.

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com