Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification

Question: Will Arizona, or any other state that practices nullification, back up and defend it's citizens who disobey the federal law and support the state law, even to Federal judges within its borders? If not, this discussion is completely moot.

Oklahoma is right there with you Arizona. Rep. Mike Ritze introduced HJR1084 the Freedom of Choice in Health Care act of 2010 on Monday, Feb. 1st. Over 300 tea party members were at the state capital to "encourage" the other legislators to get on board. I gave Dr. Ritze, Senator Randy Brogdon and seveal other True American legislators our "Come and Make me" t-shirts. Go to our web site and see the Video of me giving these shirts. Also notice that I am wearing our "Revolution Czar" T-shirt. WE, like you and around 30 states are putting our collective foot down.

What about people who live in AZ but who do not health insurance?

Obama is like Hitler: Promise to fix things up and then kill off the resistance.

I am proud of Arizona for moving forward. This national healthcare sucks, it won't work, England and Canada know this and they still move forward. Time for all of us to replace the house and the senate.

Al, I just read your August 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm posting here. I agree fully with your thesis relative to all public outcries such as demonstrations, etc. As earlier said, such behavior is nothing more than the public waiting for the Knight in Shining Armor to show up on his White Horse to bail us out of our predicaments. The Obama drama was in fact viewed in a lot of people’s minds as just such a Knight, but in reality he has turned out to be nothing more than a colossal Knight Mare (pun intended).

The first thing to understand is that Union States cannot nullify federal law because any and all federal laws are valid in the federal territory over which Congress was given the exclusive legislative power to govern through Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the federal Constitution. However, the Union States all have the power and the DUTY to nullify the application of all federal laws within their territory except where the federal Constitution specifically gives Congress the authority to legislate within Union State territory.

I like Sheriff Richard Mack’s method of nullifying the application of federal law within a Sovereign Union State, namely to unilaterally prohibit any an all federal agents from attempting to enforce federal law within Union State territory. After all the federal government is just another entity with rights to contract with Union State Citizens the same as any citizen from any one of the other 49 Union States. However, the contract by definition falls under Union State jurisdiction and laws. If the federal government, as a party to a contract with a Citizen(s) of a Union State, wishes to litigate any of the elements of such a contract, it must do so in the Union State courts having jurisdiction over the acts and behavior of a Union State Citizen(s).

In my mind, the 10th Amendment does not have anything to do with Union State Sovereignty, since the Union States were sovereign long before the Ratification of the federal Constitution. In fact, it was their Sovereignty that gave them the power and authority to ratify the federal constitution in the first place. As the Preamble to the first 10 Amendments specify, their purpose was simply “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, [by adding] further declaratory and restrictive clauses.” The 10th Amendment is simply one of the declaratory clauses added to prevent the Constitution’s misconstruction or abuse of powers, namely any power over the Union States and their citizenry, both already recognized as Sovereigns. It is left to the Union States to pass legislation to protect their sovereignty by dictating to the Union States Law Enforcement agencies, including the county Sheriffs, that federal agents (including the IRS) have no jurisdiction within the Union State (without first seeking remedies in the Union State Courts) and that anyone aiding and abetting the misapplication of federal law within the Union State will suffer the penalties of Union State Law, to include dismissal.

The gravity of this issue exceeds the comprehension of the majority because both the citizenry and the Union States have each voluntarily forfeited their sovereignty on several grounds.

To fully comprehend the delineation of federal and Union State law, catch the articles “Dual Sovereignty” and “The Bill of What” found at poorclydesalmanac.info.

P.S. Anyone who finds this to be too lengthy and complex to spend time on can be considered to be part of the problem because there are no shining Knights.

Al, I just read your August 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm posting here. I agree fully with your thesis relative to all public outcries such as demonstrations, etc. As earlier said, such behavior is nothing more than the public waiting for the Knight in Shining Armor to show up on his White Horse to bail us out of our predicaments. The Obama drama was in fact viewed in a lot of people’s minds as just such a Knight, but in reality he has turned out to be nothing more than a colossal Knight Mare (pun intended).

The first thing to understand is that Union States cannot nullify federal law because any and all federal laws are valid in the federal territory over which Congress was given the exclusive legislative power to govern through Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the federal Constitution. However, the Union States all have the power and the DUTY to nullify the application of all federal laws within their territory except where the federal Constitution specifically gives Congress the authority to legislate within Union State territory.

I like Sheriff Richard Mack’s method of nullifying the application of federal law within a Sovereign Union State, namely to unilaterally prohibit any an all federal agents from attempting to enforce federal law within Union State territory. After all the federal government is just another entity with rights to contract with Union State Citizens the same as any citizen from any one of the other 49 Union States. However, the contract by definition falls under Union State jurisdiction and laws. If the federal government, as a party to a contract with a Citizen(s) of a Union State, wishes to litigate any of the elements of such a contract, it must do so in the Union State courts having jurisdiction over the acts and behavior of a Union State Citizen(s).

In my mind, the 10th Amendment does not have anything to do with Union State Sovereignty, since the Union States were sovereign long before the Ratification of the federal Constitution. In fact, it was their Sovereignty that gave them the power and authority to ratify the federal constitution in the first place. As the Preamble to the first 10 Amendments specify, their purpose was simply “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, [by adding] further declaratory and restrictive clauses.” The 10th Amendment is simply one of the declaratory clauses added to prevent the Constitution’s misconstruction or abuse of powers, namely any power over the Union States and their citizenry, both already recognized as Sovereigns. It is left to the Union States to pass legislation to protect their sovereignty by dictating to the Union States Law Enforcement agencies, including the county Sheriffs, that federal agents (including the IRS) have no jurisdiction within the Union State (without first seeking remedies in the Union State Courts) and that anyone aiding and abetting the misapplication of federal law within the Union State will suffer the penalties of Union State Law, to include dismissal.

The gravity of this issue exceeds the comprehension of the majority because both the citizenry and the Union States have each voluntarily forfeited their sovereignty on several grounds.

To fully comprehend the delineation of federal and Union State law, catch the articles “Dual Sovereignty” and “The Bill of What” found at poorclydesalmanac.info.

P.S. Anyone who finds this to be too lengthy and complex to spend time on can be considered to be part of the problem because there are no shining Knights.

Hello distantharbor

If you would like to know more about HCR2014 you can go to...

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HCR2014

Thou you might be better off to ask a state legislator your questions personally.

Will this exclusion also potentially over ride Medicare, TRI Care, or VA benefits as well?

I think it would surprise a lot of people, how few of us actually know and communicate with our own State Legislators.

At the last Tea party I attended, I saw a lot of people discussing matters with their own State Legislator for the very first time.

There are many ways to promote more involvement, with the government closest to the people.

Excellent, Excellent question Al. I wish I had an answer!!

To all the "Wake up America writers."
OK I agree with you. But the most important question is. Now what.
I receive and forward a lot of e-mails that say "wake up America".
I say OK I'm awake, thanks for doing your job which was to wake me up.
Now that I am awake, what am I supposed to do.
If I was in the Navy and there was a fire, I would have been trained as to what I should do. But I never received any training for what to do when some group is changing our country's basic type of government.
We can look at the options.
1.) One group of patriots will say vote them all out of office, meaning the 545 or whatever that number is.
Yes that is the old method, setup by government, which takes 3+/- years. Look what Obama and pelosi have done in a few months. I don't think that we can wait to see what else they do in 3 years. I think that method should be put aside. Waiting to possibly vote existing congressmen and the administration out of office is not a viable option, in this case, at this time.
They must be stopped in advance of establishing any more laws that are counter to our country's original direction. Once the laws are in place a good citizen is unlikely to break them.
2.) Another method is the town meetings and tea parties. Even in town meetings, where upset people are yelling, does not work. The government just waits for the people to get tired of the demonstrations and then do what they wanted to, in the first place. I imagine that towns, cities, counties, states, and the federal government, are all well aware that they may have to weather a period of uncomfortable time while people vent their frustration, before the politicians can proceed with their original direction.
2A.) Look at Iran's recent election. There were millions of people against the result for a variety of reasons. I don't know how many demonstrators were in the street, but I would think there were several times that many more, that agreed with the dissenters, but did not show up in the street. So there were millions of people upset with the government. The government only has to wait for the dissenters to run out of energy and then do what they were going to do in the first place. Governments strategy can be "Give them time and there numbers will decrease." To make the point, if the demonstration had gotten bigger each day, the government would have had to look at it differently. Actually
Iran's government allowed the demonstrations to be a raging fire which they knew would eventually burn itself out.
Evidently demonstrations, even at the enormous size of those in Iran are not a viable direction for patriots to succeed.
Demonstrations are not a viable option in this case, at this time.
If those are the only two options we are allowed to use, or supposed to use, and neither are viable in this critical case, right now. What is a patriot to do. So again I say, "now what."

If you look closely, the problem is not just "recent intrusions" upon the Constitution by the US gov't - a slight but steadily increasing pattern of violations of the Constitution started early in the 19th century, to the point where the President and a majority of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress had been compromised e.g. they violated their oaths to obey and protect the Constitution and thus no longer held their offices legally. Thus, the US gov't has been operating America illegally for over 160 years. The War to establish and enforce Lincoln's Dictatorship was just the culmination of the coup, and everything since has been the resulting continued increase of gov't power against the people and the principles that America was founded upon.

So America is like a big complicated machine that's grinding to a halt due to abuse and lack of maintenance. Whenever this happens, you have to stop the machine, take it apart, strip it down, replace all the bad parts, grease it up, put it back together again, make sure it conforms to its original design, add a few safeguards to make sure this doesn't happen again, and start it up again. In this case, the bad parts are the politicians and governments at the federal and state levels and maybe most local ones as well. Hence, our work to rebuild and re-establish what we have renamed the Constitutional Republic of America
(see http://america.freecountries.org ) to distinguish it from the usurpers who stole the USA. This is being led by the United Republic of Texas
at http://texas.freecountries.org . All the state and regional sovereignty and independence movements can work together with this as part of the overall picture.

Think of it, Arizona becoming a Health Sanctuary state for the rest of the country and the world. Imagine world class Mayo clinic type facilities all over the state. An army of new doctors would flock here to handle the multitudes who would be denied care under Socialized medicine in the other states and countries. Arizona businesses and tourism would flourish overnight.

Only one problem --
How will these states handle the influx of residents and doctors!!!???

Yeah Arizona, we need an overhaul for health insurance, but this bill is not it. Oh by the way a point for health care is being slipped into new stimulus bill. It is being done so that it will be easier to pass. No bill should be passed with out the consent of the people. We are still a democracy.

By the way the state having sovereignty is the way the founders set up law.
Nullification works.

exactly why we need to repeal the 16th Amend, giving the feds the right to levy taxes, and bring the funding back so it flows the other way... the states fund the feds, instead of the feds using funding to manipulate the states.

This is great! No doubdt the Fed will take the same approach to this as was done with highway funding... Nonparticipation will lead a prohibition of federal $ for states.

The National Health Care Reform Bill is nothing more than bribery for votes:

The democrats or republicans could care less about the economic condition of our country, as long as they can buy votes.

Vote Libretarian, and get rid of all of them in Washington

Exactly; nullifying the legislation is great, but how about also nullifying the taxes that go with it??

They should stop the Medicaid and Medicare coverage while there at it. funny thing is, the people of those states still gotta pay for the public health care coverage for the bozos proposing this foolishness. And yet these are the same people who will call on the government for help like Perry.

Good to read this, I was starting to think that we had given up the very thing that makes us Americans. The Federal Government has been doing this since it forced the States to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment at the point of a bayonett. The States have been feeding from the Federal trough for so long that they have as much instinct for rebellion as a lap dog. Some of our elected friends in D.C. are like bullies, and they don't understand why anyone would resist them, after all, they do it for our own good.

Nullification. Interesting concept.

We have a tendency in America to argue for or against a concept based on our own personal philosophy or view of the world, what advances our personal interests, or the interests of our party, family, organization, or region. Perhaps viewing the issue from a management or systemic perspective might result in innovative approaches to the issue. The American national mindset, citizen philosophy, lack of citizen motivation to be proactively healthy, and governance model make the socialization of health care in America very problematic, particularly at this point in time. A country needs to know its limitations.

Ginger,

Nullification of DC is indeed a growing trend. but you don't have to simply rely on 'hope' as the Obamanation has. You can be a part of the Tenth Amendment Movement and help to ensure that this strategy takes hold.

If you, or anyone else reading this would like to join the movement, just email me at:

bryce@tenthamendmentcenter.com

and I'll get you started!

I hope this trend takes hold!

This is an EXCELLENT first step... but what about follow-up?
For instance, if Arizona nullifies the idea of a national health-care system, what will they do to insulate and protect their people from paying the costs of the system they do not want?

How will they tell the Feds, "Sorry, we are not taking part in, and therefore will not fund, your load of bullarky." ?

Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming. If you live in one of these states, you could be the one to inspire your state representative to author a simIlar bill saying no to the health care fascists. All it takes is to engage with your reps.

I know that most average people I talk to about this get really interested in the issue once I mention the idea of being fined for not having health care.

Act in the interest of us all and encourage your state government to resist DC today.

Mr. Boldin - I have no doubt that your commitment to a sustainable, and free republic, is as resolved as mine.
It is my understanding that many States do not have Constitutional ballot voting, and that there are, on both sides of this issue, many good reasons, for, and against.
One danger that I believe to be considerable, is that if we to often amend State Constitutions in reaction to Federal wrongs.
We may very well end up with Constitutions, that are far to long, and complicated to sustain even their original purposes.

Mike,
I'm sorry. There's is only one way to understand the issue and that requires a lot of reading if you really want to understand the problem and solution. While the grass roots folks know something’s wrong, most of their time is spent demonstrating, complaining, and otherwise waiting for their Knight on a Shinning horse. Observe that everyone alive today went through the public education system and came out with a mind full of mush. If we want our Country back we are going to have to individually put some legitimate cause and effect knowledge in our heads or we’ll become as dangerous as Bob Schultz, who, if we don’t get on a proper course will end up being a true Pied Piper. Most of the grass roots members still think our rights come from the bill of rights, that the Federal Government, through the supremacy clause has supreme power over the Union States and the citizens thereof, that all federal laws apply to persons living in the Union states, and the 10th amendment will somehow return our Union States to sovereign status. None of this is true, but saying it doesn’t teach it. One has to understand the why or one will not be able to help with the restoration. Semantics and the concepts conveyed by them are paramount to any understanding of the complex system of checks and balances our founders endowed us with. For example we constantly talk about legalizing drugs. The issue is remove the prohibition and the agents associated thereto and leave the people alone! If someone wants to commit suicide, that’s none of my business, unless it’s a family member. We are currently faced with the same observation that Pogo made: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” While the 10th Amendment gives us a yardstick to measure the Union States (and our) scope of power, it does nothing to guide us to a solution when that scope has gone awry. The Union States have allowed themselves to be taxed by the federal government. That act alone is a declaration of servitude. The solution , believe it or not, sits right there in the federal code, but we’re not going to be able to learn it and teach it if we’re too busy to read the research. Cheers, Ken

Mike,
I'm sorry. There's is only one way to understand the issue and that requires a lot of reading if you really want to understand the problem and solution. While the grass roots folks know something’s wrong, most of their time is spent demonstrating, complaining, and otherwise waiting for their Knight on a Shinning horse. Observe that everyone alive today went through the public education system and came out with a mind full of mush. If we want our Country back we are going to have to individually put some legitimate cause and effect knowledge in our heads or we’ll become as dangerous as Bob Schultz, who, if we don’t get on a proper course will end up being a true Pied Piper. Most of the grass roots members still think our rights come from the bill of rights, that the Federal Government, through the supremacy clause has supreme power over the Union States and the citizens thereof, that all federal laws apply to persons living in the Union states, and the 10th amendment will somehow return our Union States to sovereign status. None of this is true, but saying it doesn’t teach it. One has to understand the why or one will not be able to help with the restoration. Semantics and the concepts conveyed by them are paramount to any understanding of the complex system of checks and balances our founders endowed us with. For example we constantly talk about legalizing drugs. The issue is remove the prohibition and the agents associated thereto and leave the people alone! If someone wants to commit suicide, that’s none of my business, unless it’s a family member. We are currently faced with the same observation that Pogo made: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” While the 10th Amendment gives us a yardstick to measure the Union States (and our) scope of power, it does nothing to guide us to a solution when that scope has gone awry. The Union States have allowed themselves to be taxed by the federal government. That act alone is a declaration of servitude. The solution , believe it or not, sits right there in the federal code, but we’re not going to be able to learn it and teach it if we’re too busy to read the research. Cheers, Ken

I'll give you a good case in point: The elitists in Arizona attempted to back door an overthrow of the Peoples' will with a ballot proposition that would have overturned what the People, through their legislature, had already done. Namely their newly passed immigration law. But the good people of Arizona caught onto this scheme and summarily struck it down. Notwithstanding that, even if the people of a given state do make the wrong decision on a given issue or question, as long as they are the ones that have to deal with its consequences, they'll generally eventually come to their senses. Albeit begrudgingly sometimes, but nonetheless.

This is really good now people don't have to enroll them self in health care system .

Good start. Now let's see Arizona on the other lists - Firearms Freedoms, Bring the Guard Home, Medical Marijuana (actually, outright legalization of marijuana - prosecuting and incarcerating thousands for this victimless 'crime' is needlessly costing our counties and state millions). And where is the 'freedoms act' against federal mandating of deadly vaccines?
For more information on freedom, see whatreallyhappened.com.

I say good on Arizona's leaders for standing against yet another piece of legislation that is designed to erode the sovereignty of States. Lets hope the People of Arizona seize the opportunity.

Actually, no, Mr. Michael Boldin, I do not believe that government is the source of authority, However, I do believe in my right to have representatives listen to my point of view, without them responding to me, that I am unwittingly petitioning the wrong authority, or that it has now become my responsibility to write up a petition, so glandules, that it might itself cause the entire population of my State to consider reforming their Constitution.

If I was to disagree with any decision of my government, there would always be this, never before rejected American possibility, that with enough support from my fellow citizens, this to may be changed, (or even elaborated upon,) without effectively changing the Constitution of this State.

Warning … I will not allow anything that I have said here, to be contrived, as if I myself, do not understand, that this is imperatively a sovereign republic.

Actually, no, Mr. Michael Boldin, I do not believe that government is the source of authority, However, I do believe in my right to have representatives listen to my point of view, without them responding to me, that I am unwittingly petitioning the wrong authority, or that it has now become my responsibility to write up a petition, so glandules, that it might itself cause the entire population of my State to consider reforming their Constitution.

If I was to disagree with any decision of my government, there would always be this, never before rejected American possibility, that with enough support from my fellow citizens, this to may be changed, (or even elaborated upon,) without effectively changing the Constitution of this State.

Warning … I will not allow anything that I have said here, to be contrived, as if I myself, do not understand, that this is imperatively a sovereign republic.

I think this is a shame, that the Arizona Senate, and House, do not feel that they have the political (responsibility) to legislate upon these matters, without firstly, and instantaneously referring this authority, to the will of the populous, to present themselves before the people, as if to say, we ourselves are powerless.

Ken, interesting perspective. Looking forward to seeing more of your feedback here in the near future.

Finally I found a website dedicated to Union State sovereignty. Almost all federal law finds it's conduit to existence via Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. Check out the article “Dual Sovereignty” at poorcludesalmanac.info for a complete treatise on the power and application of federal legislation within the territory of the 50 Union States. I use the term “Union States” to delineate them from “federal states” which is the method Congress uses to refer to political subdivisions and territories existing within the territory over which Congress was given the exclusive power to legislate. By redefining the term “State” to refer only to only those said political subdivisions and territories, Congress confined the jurisdiction of its Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 power to strictly federal territory. While in a great many of the cases, the redefinition of the term “State” is a “little” obfuscated, it effectively washed its hands of any deliberate attempt to have its legislation enforced in any of the territory within the 50 Union States. However, there is no guarantee that the reader of the federal laws could intellectually substitute the concept of the redefined term “State” for the one commonly known to exist in the federal Constitution. Thus, the basis for my use of the term “Union State” when addressing any one of the 50 States of the Union. Stay tuned for a discourse on why the Union States are subjects not sovereigns with respect to the federal government and what they each must do to regain their sovereignty.

Finally I found a website dedicated to Union State sovereignty. Almost all federal law finds it's conduit to existence via Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. Check out the article “Dual Sovereignty” at poorcludesalmanac.info for a complete treatise on the power and application of federal legislation within the territory of the 50 Union States. I use the term “Union States” to delineate them from “federal states” which is the method Congress uses to refer to political subdivisions and territories existing within the territory over which Congress was given the exclusive power to legislate. By redefining the term “State” to refer only to only those said political subdivisions and territories, Congress confined the jurisdiction of its Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 power to strictly federal territory. While in a great many of the cases, the redefinition of the term “State” is a “little” obfuscated, it effectively washed its hands of any deliberate attempt to have its legislation enforced in any of the territory within the 50 Union States. However, there is no guarantee that the reader of the federal laws could intellectually substitute the concept of the redefined term “State” for the one commonly known to exist in the federal Constitution. Thus, the basis for my use of the term “Union State” when addressing any one of the 50 States of the Union. Stay tuned for a discourse on why the Union States are subjects not sovereigns with respect to the federal government and what they each must do to regain their sovereignty.

This is a great step by Arizona. I hope to see other states begin this with the cap and trade insanity.

This is a great step by Arizona. I hope to see other state begin this with the cap and trade insanity.