While I commend Tea Party patriots, for example, for protesting in DC to try to stop the HoR from passing Obamacare, please consider this. Why are ordinary citizens trying to do all the dirty work in trying to put corrupt Congress back on its constitutional leash when that's partly what we elect state lawmakers to do? After all, it's the states who have the power to regulate and lay taxes for healthcare, for example, not the Oval Office and Congress.

A Democratic Idaho state lawmaker, for example, seems oblivious to the idea that the federal healthcare dollars that Governor Otter is trying to keep out of Idaho with the Idaho Health Freedom Act should never have left her state in the first place.

AP: Idaho first to sign law against health care reform

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/u…

What this Democratic Idaho lawmaker evidently doesn't understand is that the USSC has already decided that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into the medical practice.

“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925. http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/5/case.html

And not only is federal public healthcare constitutionally unauthorized, but Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored by both Democratic and Republican federal and state lawmakers, that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html

So not only is Obamacare, for example, constitutionally unauthorized, but as Chief Justice Marshall's words clearly indicate, Congress doesn't have the power to lay taxes for Obamacare in the first place.

Getting back to Constitution-impaired state lawmakers, not only does the Idaho Democratic lawmaker evidently not understand that she's not doing her job to protect Idaho citizens from illegal federal taxes, such as those being used to fund Obamacare which she is ironically scared of losing for her state, but there’s probably state sovereignty-impaired lawmakers in all states who likewise don’t understand that they are failing to stop corrupt Congress from stealing from the people.

The bottom line is that instead of targeting only Congress to help restore state sovereignty in November, citizens need to light a fire under constitutionally-impaired state lawmakers to get off their cans and start using their greater constitutional powers to serve the people, booting corrupt federal lawmakers and their illegal taxes out of Congress.

On a positive note, Tenth Amendment Center has indicated that several states are already working on legislation to prohibit constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes from leaving their states. (Did you hear that bankrupt California?)

ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/18/re…

First, I never said that all unsettled law is incorrect, if that is what you meant.

Regarding federal healthcare, the states have never authorized the federal government via the Constitution to regulate public healthcare. If Reid and Pelosi’s Congress had complied with Article V and been granted the power by the states to regulate healthcare then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Regarding the states, each state has the power to say yes or no to state run healthcare.

Finally, the problem with Congress usurping state power and stealing state tax dollars associated with those powers is this. You end up with too much money in in one place, the US Treasury in this case. After all, all that a crook has to do to steal from the Treasury is to get elected as a federal lawmaker. Once a federal lawmaker the crook robs the Treasury in the form of “nonexistent” legislative earmarks which puts taxpayer dollars in the pocket of the special interest groups who put the crook into office in the first place.

On the other hand, if citizen’s hard earned dollars stated in the states then there’d be much less money in the US Treasury that the crooks could get their hands on.

So it’s just a sign of Constitution ignorance, IMO, to think that USSC decisions are final.

The reason that the states haven’t exercised their Article V power to overturn unpopular USSC case decisions in the last decade, such as with Roe v. Wade, is this. State lawmakers are evidently as constitutionally impaired as the people who vote them into office are, IMO.

As a side note concerning Roe v. Wade, while the states could have “overruled” the USSC by making an amendment prohibiting abortion, Roe v. Wade was based on perversions of Constitution by corrupt justices, IMO, an anti-abortion amendment arguably unnecessary.

Try sticking to the topic of whether the Supremacy Clause applies when the act in question is unconstitutional.

It's as if they've never heard of overruling precedent and it's getting old.