Will Georgia Nullify National Health Care?

As a Georgian, I am all for my state nullifying this legisltion, should it become law (along with about 99% of the legislation that comes out of Washington). Problem is, we can't exactly opt out of funding the program, and nullification will not insulate any state from the economic devastation the legislation is bound to cause across the Union of States. Such economic devastation will certainly prompt our opressors in Washington to pass more unconstitutional, power snatching legislation, creating a vicious cycle of new problems, and big government "solutions" to the problems caused by big government. It seems to me that aside from a full scale, multi-state revolt against the tyrants, our only hope for escape is secession.

Whats Idiotic- Frank- is to think libertarians have a realistic aproach to problem solving, lets take a look at how they want things to run....oh thats right... they haven't offered anything up..

If healthcare is what the public wants it should come from their state, and they should be able to vote for it, as long as it is on a local level and it is paid for by state citizens... if the libertarians are so dedicated to their cause of property rights ( where ever the hell that example came from ) why do we only hear cricket from their corner?

Pretty stupid to use them as an example...

The Union may dissolve.

Obama's Washington is over run with Communists and radicals. As an example: Obama has appointed, without Congressional review and/or our votes, over 36 Czars to dictate to us everything from the type of cars we are allowed to buy to using heat in our homes in the Winter, to having a garden in our own yards, to forced health care, to impose severe restrictions and/or elimination of our freedom(s) across the board.

And to enforce the un-American dictates, Obama has put in-place thugs
( Acorn, La Raza,Union, etc) and/or domestic military( Amerocorp) to threaten and possibly kill any Americans that resist.

We know that Obama has hi-jacked the Democratic party and has replaced it with racist radicals that want to destroy our country. This is frightening.
If the Congress and Senate won't stop Obama, Pelosi and Reid from their un-constituitional activities, the states themselves, endorsed by the American people, must make a stand.

I just wonder, which states will pass the legislation and/or if the states will actually assert Sovereignty from the Union?

FYI- Chip Rogers was on Fox today during the Live Desk. Regrettably the interviewer filling in for Trace Gallagher didn't seem to be much on the side of Georgia and grilled him pretty hard. Rogers seemed a little caught off guard by that approach.

Frank-O, In addition to being quite conservative, I'm also real big on individual freedom and responsibility. The "stripped down" definition of a libertarian if you like. Assuming that you have read the Tenth Amendment since you are here, remember that it states clearly that the powers not delegated to the Fed are retained by the States or the People.

Property rights quite honestly should be resolved at the State and local level. It's far easier to protect Liberty close to home than it is at some distant disconnected place like DC.

This is just one Libertarian's viewpoint of course, but I think you will find far more than you expect agreeing with it.

state plans don't violate the constitution? try explaining that to some libertarians who believe that any violations of property rights need to be stopped by the federal government.

Wow, that's idiotic.

It is only because people refuse to exercise the right to vote locally that they fail to find satisfaction within their state. If you look at the dismal numbers of voter turn out for local elections, it speaks a clear message that state citizens are perfectly happy with their state leaders running to the feds to solve their problems, healthcare is a good example.

I have no problem working within my state to achieve a healthcare plan, Why?.. well for one, it doesnt violate the federal constitution. If my State wants to develop a statewide healthcare plan ( which is has) I am more then willing to work within those parameters, I will participate in voting for State legislators who will take my concerns to Olympia and make it an issue because the healthcare issue is being addressed and tackled locally, me participating in it will have an impact.

On a federal level the issue is decided by leaders who have no vested interest in 49 of the 50 states this is why federal programs rarely if ever work the way they were intended.

The more people get active in their local community the less likely they are to seek larger government bodys to solve their problems.

Believe it or not, community activism is where the solutions are. Where it fails is running to big government for their solutions, Local Communities need to generate their own answers to their problems instead of automatically running to big government for funding,because no community ever gets funding without strings attached....

People need to vote and support as liberal as they can afford on the smallest of government levels to keep things running, (city government, neighborhood associations) first, and progressively Conservative towards the larger government bodys, in order to keep larger government at arms length.

Alvin you realize not only did people not go to the federal government in such a situation for support, but could have gone to the state.

I know for a fact that in Texas the State passed a law to deal with speed trap towns.

To be clear I'm not saying we shouldn't use the federal government to check the states, we should but only when it becomes clear the problem is with the state government itself, and only if that State government ceases to be a republican form of government. Meaning the leadership are not operating under the laws and/or representing the will of the people.

The problem should be a rather big scale state wide problem before the Federal government should need to get involved, at which point the federal government should be dealing with the State not the local authorities or the people.

I think a general segregation of rolls in terms of who is allowed to directly deal with the people, is the best way to layer our defenses and preserve a federal Constitutional system.

It’s a lot easier for people to reliably identities Constitutional oversteps when it is defined by where and to whom the government acted, then it is when it is defined by why and for what the government acted. This is because why and for what are subjective based upon what goes on in the mind as to judgment, where as where and whom are absolute based upon what physically happened.

Therefore it behooves us to defend the system by means of the segregation of power using the former rather then the latter as much as possible.

Alvin you realize not only did people not go to the federal government in such a situation for support, but could have gone to the state.

I know for a fact that in Texas the State passed a law to deal with speed trap towns.

To be clear I'm not saying we shouldn't use the federal government to check the states, we should but only when it becomes clear the problem is with the state government itself, and only if that State government ceases to be a republican form of government. Meaning the leadership are not operating under the laws and/or representing the will of the people.

The problem should be a rather big scale state wide problem before the Federal government should need to get involved, at which point the federal government should be dealing with the State not the local authorities or the people.

I think a general segregation of rolls in terms of who is allowed to directly deal with the people, is the best way to layer our defenses and preserve a federal Constitutional system.

It’s a lot easier for people to reliably identities Constitutional oversteps when it is defined by where and to whom the government acted, then it is when it is defined by why and for what the government acted. This is because why and for what are subjective based upon what goes on in the mind as to judgment, where as where and whom are absolute based upon what physically happened.

Therefore it behooves us to defend the system by means of the segregation of power using the former rather then the latter as much as possible.

Jeff, Rep Steele has been fantastic on sovereignty issues. Hope to see some activity in SD on health care too.

It is because the states and local abused their power which is why people have had to go to the federal government for help

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090903/ap_on_re_us/us_shot_in_court

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/05/texas.police.seizures/index.html

Michael, if South Dakota is not among the ten states you are referencing, check with Manny Steele there. I know he'd be game for such a resolution. They have sessions annually, and theirs will be starting pretty soon.

To fuel any-movement one must have a solid basis of logic, reasoning and values, to drive it's implementation.

To that end to fuel the movement that demands ground up authority we might relate it to the idea of ground up sovereignty on the principles fount, and ground up knowledge and experience on the practicality front.

Arguing that the smaller a law enforcement officers jurisdiction the more adapt they can be to the job with regard to the specific quirks and nature local area and local population.

This knowledge and experiences alone should make them the most qualified officers to make the choices as to how to best enforce the law in that particular area. (Hence justification for superior authority over less specifically adapted law enforcement.)

Nice this is the rout we need to take.

As a logical Federal policy choice we need to work to further disarm the Federal Government’s law enforcement capability. We can probably save a good deal of money, by disparaging the ATF, and severely limiting the FBI to just dealing with foreigners terrorist, and providing lab resources to states law enforcement on request.

One thing we might insist on is that FBI agents recognized that they are inferior in authority to Local and State law enforcement, not above. That means the locals are in charge in their area of jurisdiction, law enforcement in the United States needs to be bottom up not top down.

Nice this is the rout we need to take.

As a logical Federal policy choice we need to work to further disarm the Federal Government’s law enforcement capability. We can probably save a good deal of money, by disparaging the ATF, and severely limiting the FBI to just dealing with foreigners terrorist, and providing lab resources to states law enforcement on request.

One thing we might insist on is that FBI agents recognized that they are inferior in authority to Local and State law enforcement, not above. That means the locals are in charge in their area of jurisdiction, law enforcement in the United States needs to be bottom up not top down.

What are the 10 states that have passed this? I might have to move!